Political freedom is the absence of interference with the sovereignty of an individual by the use of coercion or aggression.

Freedom is commonly known as the quality or state of being free from government oppression. This is a definition of freedom which coincides with negative liberty and freedom can also be defined in the positive sense of the term which involves having the power and resources to fulfill one's own potential. The opposite of a free society is a totalitarian state, which highly restricts political freedom in order to regulate almost every aspect of behavior. In this sense freedom refers solely to the relation of humans to other humans, and the only infringement on it is coercion by humans.[1]

Contents
[hide]

1 Types 2 Views 3 See also 4 References 5 External links

[edit] Types
The concept of political freedom is very closely allied with the concepts of civil liberties and individual rights, which in most democratic societies is characterized by various freedoms which are afforded the legal protection from the state. Some of these freedoms may include (in alphabetical order):

Freedom of assembly Freedom of association Freedom of movement Freedom of religion Freedom of speech Freedom of the press Freedom of thought Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, which is related to freedom of privacy Freedom to bear arms Suffrage Scientific freedom Academic freedom Economic freedom

[edit] Views

This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page.
(December 2010)

Various groups along the political spectrum naturally differ on what they believe constitutes "true" political freedom. Left wing political philosophy generally couples the notion of freedom with that of positive liberty, or the enabling of an individual to realize his or her own potential. Freedom, in this sense, may include freedom from poverty, starvation, treatable disease, and oppression, as well as freedom from force and coercion, from whomever they may issue. However Friedrich Hayek, a well-known classical liberal, criticized this as a misconception of freedom: the use of liberty to describe the physical ability to do what I want, the power to satisfy our wishes, or the extent of the choice of alternatives open to us...has been deliberately fostered as part of the socialist argument... Once this identification of freedom with power is admitted, there is no limit to the sophisms by which the attractions of the word liberty can be used to support measures which destroy individual liberty, no end to the tricks by which people can be exhorted in the name of liberty to give up their liberty. It has been with the help of this equivocation that the notion of collective power over circumstances has been substituted for that of individual liberty and that in totalitarian states liberty has been suppressed in the name of liberty.[2] Hayek also famously noted[3] that "liberty" and "freedom" have probably been the most abused words in recent history. John Dalberg-Acton stated that "The most certain test by which we judge whether a country is really free is the amount of security enjoyed by minorities."[4] Milton Friedman, another classical liberal, strongly incorporated the absence from coercion into his description of political freedom. The essence of political freedom is the absence of coercion of one man by his fellow men. The fundamental danger to political freedom is the concentration of power. The existence of a large measure of power in the hands of a relatively few individuals enables them to use it to coerce their fellow men. Preservation of freedom requires either the elimination of power where that is possible or its dispersal where it cannot be eliminated.[5] Many social anarchists see negative and positive liberty as complementary concepts of freedom. They describe the negative liberty-centric view endorsed by capitalists as "selfish freedom". According to Anarchism FAQ The right-libertarian does not address or even acknowledge that the (absolute) right of private property may lead to extensive control by property owners over those who use, but do not own, property (such as workers and tenants). Thus a free-market capitalist system leads to a very

selective and class-based protection of "rights" and "freedoms." For example, under capitalism, the "freedom" of employers inevitably conflicts with the "freedom" of employees. When stockholders or their managers exercise their "freedom of enterprise" to decide how their company will operate, they violate their employee's right to decide how their laboring capacities will be utilized. In other words, under capitalism, the "property rights" of employers will conflict with and restrict the "human right" of employees to manage themselves. Capitalism allows the right of selfmanagement only to the few, not to all. Or, alternatively, capitalism does not recognize certain human rights as universal which anarchism does. Some people treat freedom as if it were almost synonymous with democracy, while other people see conflicts or even opposition between the two concepts. For example, some people argue that Iraq was free under Paul Bremer on the grounds that it was a rational, humanist, non-subjugating government, long before elections were held[citation needed]. Others have argued that Iraq was free under Saddam Hussein because Iraq was not a colony[citation needed], while a third one's claim is that neither dictatorial nor colonial rule in Iraq are examples of political freedom. Environmentalists often argue that political freedoms should include some constraint on use of ecosystems. They maintain there is no such thing, for instance, as "freedom to pollute" or "freedom to deforest" given that such activities create negative externalities. The popularity of SUVs, golf, and urban sprawl has been used as evidence that some ideas of freedom and ecological conservation can clash. This leads at times to serious confrontations and clashes of values reflected in advertising campaigns, e.g. that of PETA regarding fur. There have been numerous philosophical debates over the nature of freedom, the claimed differences between various types of freedom, and the extent to which freedom is desirable. Determinists argue that all human actions are pre-determined and thus freedom is an illusion. Isaiah Berlin saw a distinction between negative liberty and positive liberty. In jurisprudence, freedom is the right to determine one's own actions autonomously; generally it is granted in those fields in which the subject has no obligations to fulfill or laws to obey, according to the interpretation that the hypothetical natural unlimited freedom is limited by the law for some matters. Autonomy (Ancient Greek: autonomia from autonomos from auto- "self" + nomos, "law" "one who gives oneself their own law") is a concept found in moral, political, and bioethical philosophy. Within these contexts, it refers to the capacity of a rational individual to make an informed, un-coerced decision. In moral and political philosophy, autonomy is often used as the basis for determining moral responsibility for one's actions. One of the best known philosophical theories of autonomy was developed by Kant. In medicine, respect for the autonomy of patients is an important goal, though it can conflict with a competing ethical principle, namely beneficence. However, beneficence is what is claimed to have motivated every parent from before the dawn of civilization. Autonomy is also used to refer to the self-government of the people. Look up autonomy in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Contents
[hide]

1 Sociology 2 Politics 3 Philosophy 4 Religion 5 Medicine 6 Restrictions on autonomy 7 Space systems 8 Various uses 9 See also 10 References

[edit] Sociology
In the subfield of Sociology called Sociology of knowledge, controversy over the boundaries of autonomy stopped at the concept of relative autonomy [1] , until a typology of autonomy was created and developed within science and technology studies. According to it, the contemporary form of Science's existing autonomy is the reflexive autonomy: actors and structures within the scientific field are able to translate or to reflect diverse themes presented by social and political fields, as well as influence them regarding the thematic choices on research projects

[edit] Politics
In the past few decades, a large movement of autonomism has emerged in the form of anarchism. In the United States government, autonomy refers to one's own self-governance. One former example of an autonomous jurisdiction into the United States government belong to the Philippine Islands; The Philippine Autonomy Act of 1916 provided the framework for the creation of an autonomous government providing the Filipino people (Filipinos) broader domestic autonomy, though it reserved certain privileges to the United States to protect its sovereign rights and interests.[2]

[edit] Philosophy
The word autonomy has several meanings in a philosophical context. In ethics, autonomy refers to a person's capacity for self-determination in the context of moral choices. Kant argued that autonomy is demonstrated by a person who decides on a course of action out of respect for moral duty. That is, an autonomous person acts morally solely for the sake of doing "good", independently of other incentives. In his Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, Kant applied this concept to create a definition of personhood. He suggested that such compliance with moral

law creates the essence of human dignity. In metaphysical philosophy, the concept of autonomy is referenced in discussions about free will, fatalism, determinism, and agency.

[edit] Religion
In the polity of the Orthodox Church, the term "autonomous" describes a type of church body. A church that is autonomous has its highest-ranking bishop, such as an archbishop or metropolitan, appointed by the patriarch of the mother church from which it was granted its autonomy, but is self-governing in all other respects.

[edit] Medicine
In a medical context, respect for a patient's autonomy is considered a fundamental ethical principle. This belief is the central premise of the concept of informed consent and shared decision making. This idea, while considered essential to today's practice of medicine, was developed in the last 50 years. According to Beauchamp and Childress (in Principles of Biomedical Ethics), the Nuremberg trials detailed accounts of horrifyingly exploitative medical "experiments." These incidences prompted calls for safeguards in medical research. In the 1940s, the phrase "informed consent" appeared but didn't become widely used until the 1970s. Initially, discussions about informed consent focused almost exclusively on research subjects, but eventually has come to apply to the conventional physician-patient relationship as well. The seven elements of informed consent (as defined by Beauchamp) include threshold elements (Competence and Voluntariness), information elements (Disclosure, Recommendation, and Understanding) and consent elements (Decision and Authorization).

[edit] Restrictions on autonomy

Autonomy can be, and usually is to one extent or another, waived to another authority, such as by agreeing to follow governing laws. The actions available to an autonomous unit can be restricted by a more powerful authority, such as when a cattleman sets a fence around his herd, or a court sentences a criminal to prison. The decisions of an autonomous unit can be coerced, and its actions forced. Autonomy can be restricted through the aspect of the ability to act, as in the case of a newborn or through the aspect of the ability to decide as in the case of a person in a coma.

[edit] Space systems

Autonomy is an increasing feature of space systems with two objectives

Mandatory for new functions: e.g. several spacecraft in formation flight adjust their relative positions so that interferometric measurements with wide basis can be performed

Cost reduction:

e.g. failure detection and recovery by spacecraft system without ground station involvement reduces Up-/Downlink usage and reduces operational costs on ground.

See Robotics:

An Autonomous Space Craft might make certain decisions for itself based on imagery observation and a pre-programmed algorithm that will determine the only possible logical outcome and then perform that task without having to ask controllers NAND NOR AND types of parameters. Autonomy in Space does not relate to the socio-political definitions, here we are talking about a device that can make basic or convoluted decisions based on LOGIC (in an electronic usage), the X37b Military Space Plane is a great example! To have true Autonomy however a device (or entity) would need to have a longer leash being able to complete complex missions without human intra direction. Such a system would say further automate the other elements of the total process making the whole of the "system" larger by including more devices that multicommunicate with each other without involving ground based technicians or communications. (the military might not want to send possibly interceptable signals to and from said same) For example: If they automated the ground based tracking and control sending and or included additional satellites and/or space planes OR other devices (autonomous air and seacraft) the X37b Missions could someday become totally Autonomous.

Basically: Send it on a mission and recover it when it lands. Obviously Autonomy here too has its authority hierarchy whereby command override

is in effect. If the ground controllers want to they can take control of the space craft at any time. A typical mission though will be preprogrammed and perform as directed and land.. OR perform a task WHILE and/or UNTIL (in a software sense) a condition is met (say a signal sent from the ground) IF/THEN Land the Un-Manned SpaceCraft without further direction from the ground. The systems so happen to interact but that is not a necessary condition for autonomy. As each device becomes more and more autonomous the total network becomes more and more intelligent and at the same time secure

Please see Cybernetics for more info. See also: Unmanned aerial vehicle or UAV

[edit] Various uses

In computing, an autonomous peripheral is one that can be used with the computer turned off Within self-determination theory in psychology, autonomy refers to 'autonomy support versus control', "hypothesizing that autonomy-supportive social contexts tend to facilitate self-determined motivation, healthy development, and optimal functioning."

In mathematical analysis, an ordinary differential equation is said to be autonomous if it is time-independent. In linguistics, an autonomous language is one which is independent of other languages, for example has a standard, grammar books, dictionaries or literature etc. In robotics "autonomy means independence of control. This characterization implies that autonomy is a property of the relation between two agents, in the case of robotics, of the relations between the designer and the autonomous robot. Self-sufficiency, situatedness, learning or development, and evolution increase an agents degree of autonomy.", according to Rolf Pfeifer. In economics, autonomous consumption is consumption expenditure when income levels are zero, making spending autonomous to income. In politics, autonomous territories are States wishing to retain territorial integrity in opposition to ethnic or indigenous demands for self-determination or independence (sovereignty). In anti-establishment activism, an autonomous space is another name for a nongovernmental social center or free space (for community interaction).

Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory. Rights are of essential importance in such disciplines as law and ethics, especially theories of justice and deontology. Rights are often considered fundamental to civilization, being regarded as established pillars of society and culture, and the history of social conflicts can be found in the history of each right and its development. The connection between rights and struggle cannot be overstated rights are not as much granted or endowed as they are fought for and claimed, and the essence of struggles past and ancient are encoded in the spirit of current concepts of rights and their modern formulations.

Contents
[hide]

1 Etymology 2 A wide variety of meanings o 2.1 Natural rights versus legal rights o 2.2 Claim rights versus liberty rights o 2.3 Positive rights versus negative rights o 2.4 Individual rights versus group rights o 2.5 Other senses 3 Rights and politics 4 History of rights 5 See also 6 References 7 External links

Etymology
The Modern English word right derives from Old English riht or reht, in turn from ProtoGermanic *ritaz meaning right" or "direct, and ultimately from Proto-Indo-European *reg-tomeaning having moved in a straight line, in turn from *(o)reg'(a)- meaning to straighten or direct.[1] In several different Indo-European languages, a single word derived from the same root means both "right" and "law", such as French droit[2], Spanish derecho[3], and German recht[4]. Many other words related to normative or regulatory concepts derive from this same root, including correct[5], regulate[6], and rex[7] (meaning "king"), whence regal[8] and thence royal[9]. Likewise many more geometric terms derive from this same root, such as erect (as in "upright")[10], rectangle (literally "right angle")[11], straight[12] and stretch[13]. Like right, the English words rule[14] and ruler[15], deriving still from the same root, have both normative or regulatory and geometric meanings (e.g. a ruler as in a king, or a ruler as in a straightedge). Several other roots have similar normative and geometric descendants, such as Latin norma[16], whence norm[17], normal[18], and normative[19] itself, and also geometric concepts such as surface normals; and likewise Greek ortho[20] and Latin ordo[21], meaning either "right" or "correct" (as in orthodox, meaning "correct opinion"[22]) or "straight" or "perpendicular" (as in orthogonal, meaning "perpendicular angle"[23]), and thence order[24], ordinary[25], etc.

A wide variety of meanings

Rights are widely regarded as the basis of law, but what if laws are bad? Some theorists suggest civil disobedience is, itself, a right, and it was advocated by thinkers such as Henry David Thoreau, Martin Luther King Jr., and Gandhi. There is considerable disagreement about what is meant precisely by the term rights. It has been used by different groups and thinkers for different purposes, with different and sometimes opposing definitions, and the precise definition of this principle, beyond having something to do with normative rules of some sort or another, is controversial. One way to get an idea of the multiple understandings and senses of the term is to consider different ways it is used. Many diverse things are claimed as rights:

A right to life, a right to choose; a right to vote, to work, to strike; a right to one phone call, to dissolve parliament, to operate a forklift, to asylum, to equal treatment before the law, to feel proud of what one has done; a right to exist, to sentence an offender to death, to launch a nuclear first strike, to carry a concealed weapon, to a distinct genetic identity; a right to believe one's own eyes, to pronounce the couple husband and wife, to be left alone, to go to hell in one's own way.[26]

There are likewise diverse possible ways to categorize rights, such as:

Who is alleged to have the right: Children's rights, animal rights, workers' rights, states' rights, the rights of peoples. What actions or states or objects the asserted right pertains to: Rights of free expression, to pass judgment; rights of privacy, to remain silent; property rights, bodily rights. Why the rightholder (allegedly) has the right: Moral rights spring from moral reasons, legal rights derive from the laws of the society, customary rights are aspects of local customs. How the asserted right can be affected by the rightholder's actions: The inalienable right to life, the forfeitable right to liberty, and the waivable right that a promise be kept.[26]

There has been considerable debate about what this term means within the academic community, particularly within fields such as philosophy, law, deontology, logic, and political science. One way to look at different senses of the term of rights is to examine contrasting ideas about the concept.

Natural rights versus legal rights

According to some views, certain rights derive from a deity or Nature Main article: Natural and legal rights

Natural rights are rights which are derived from nature. They are universal; that is, they apply to all people, and do not derive from the laws of any specific society. They exist necessarily, inhere in every individual, and can't be taken away. For example, it has been argued that humans have a natural right to life. They're sometimes called moral rights or inalienable rights.

Legal rights, in contrast, are based on a society's customs, laws, statutes or actions by legislatures. An example of a legal right is the right to vote of citizens. Citizenship, itself, is often considered as the basis for having legal rights, and has been defined as the "right to have rights". Legal rights are sometimes called civil rights or statutory rights and are culturally and politically relative since they depend on a specific societal context to have meaning.

Some thinkers see rights in only one sense while others accept that both senses have a measure of validity. There has been considerable philosophical debate about these senses throughout history. For example, Jeremy Bentham believed that legal rights were the essence of rights, and he denied the existence of natural rights; whereas Thomas Aquinas held that rights purported by positive law but not grounded in natural law were not properly rights at all, but only a facade or pretense of rights.

Claim rights versus liberty rights

A deed is an example of a claim right in the sense that it asserts a right to own land. This particular deed dates back to 1273. Main article: Claim rights and liberty rights

A claim right is a right which entails that another person has a duty to the right-holder. Somebody else must do or refrain from doing something to or for the claim holder, such as perform a service or supply a product for him or her; that is, he or she has a claim to that service or product (another term is thing in action). In logic, this idea can be expressed as: "Person A has a claim that person B do something if and only if B has a duty to A to do that something." Every claim-right entails that some other duty-bearer must do some duty for the claim to be satisfied. This duty can be to act or to refrain from acting. For example, many jurisdictions recognize broad claim rights to things like "life, liberty, and property"; these rights impose an obligation upon others not to assault or restrain a person, or use their property, without the claim-holder's permission. Likewise, in jurisdictions where social welfare services are provided, citizens have legal claim rights to be provided with those services.

A liberty right or privilege, in contrast, is simply a freedom or permission for the rightholder to do something, and there are no obligations on other parties to do or not do anything. This can be expressed in logic as: "Person A has a privilege to do something if and only if A has no duty not to do that something." For example, if a person has a legal liberty right to free speech, that merely means that it is not legally forbidden for them to speak freely: it does not mean that anyone has to help enable their speech, or to listen to their speech; or even, per se, refrain from stopping them from speaking, though other rights, such as the claim right to be free from assault, may severely limit what others can do to stop them.

Liberty rights and claim rights are the inverse of one another: a person has a liberty right permitting him to do something only if there is no other person who has a claim right forbidding him from doing so. Likewise, if a person has a claim right against someone else, then that other person's liberty is limited. For example, a person has a liberty right to walk down a sidewalk and can decide freely whether or not to do so, since there is no obligation either to do so or to refrain from doing so. But pedestrians may have an obligation not to walk on certain lands, such as other people's private property, to which those other people have a claim right. So a person's liberty right of walking extends precisely to the point where another's claim right limits his or her freedom.

Positive rights versus negative rights

Main article: Negative and positive rights In one sense, a right is a permission to do something or an entitlement to a specific service or treatment, and these rights have been called positive rights. However, in another sense, rights may allow or require inaction, and these are called negative rights; they permit or require doing nothing. For example, in some democracies e.g. the US, citizens have the positive right to vote and they have the negative right not to vote; people can stay home and watch television instead, if they desire. In other democracies e.g. Australia, however, citizens have a positive right to vote but they don't have a negative right to not vote, since non-voting citizens can be fined. Accordingly:

Positive rights are permissions to do things, or entitlements to be done unto. One example of a positive right is the purported "right to welfare."[27] Negative rights are permissions not to do things, or entitlements to be left alone. Often the distinction is invoked by libertarians who think of a negative right as an entitlement to "non-interference" such as a right against being assaulted.[27]

Though similarly named, positive and negative rights should not be confused with active rights (which encompass "privileges" and "powers") and passive rights (which encompass "claims" and "immunities").

Individual rights versus group rights

Main article: Individual and group rights

The general sense of right is that they are possessed by individuals in the sense that they are permissions and entitlements to do things which other persons, or which governments or authorities, can not infringe. This is the understanding of thinkers such as Ayn Rand who argued that only individuals have rights, according to her philosophy called Objectivism.[28] However, others have argued that there are situations in which a group of persons is thought to have rights, or group rights. Accordingly:

Individual rights are rights held by individual people regardless of their group membership or lack thereof.

Do groups have rights? Some argue that when soldiers bond in combat, the group becomes like an organism in itself and has rights which trump the rights of any individual soldier.

Group rights have been argued to exist when a group is seen as more than a mere composite or assembly of separate individuals but an entity in its own right. In other words, it's possible to see a group as a distinct being in and of itself; it's akin to an enlarged individual which has a distinct will and power of action and can be thought of as having rights. For example, a platoon of soldiers in combat can be thought of as a distinct group, since individual members are willing to risk their lives for the survival of the group, and therefore the group can be conceived as having a "right" which is superior to that of any individual member; for example, a soldier who disobeys an officer can be punished, perhaps even killed, for a breach of obedience. But there is another sense of group rights in which people who are members of a group can be thought of as having specific individual rights because of their membership in a group. In this sense, the set of rights which individuals-as-group-members have is expanded because of their membership in a group. For example, workers who are members of a group such as a labor union can be thought of as having expanded individual rights because of their membership in the labor union, such as the rights to specific working conditions or wages. As expected, there is sometimes considerable disagreement about what exactly is meant by the term "group" as well as by the term "group rights."

There can be tension between individual and group rights. A classic instance in which group and individual rights clash is conflicts between unions and their members. For example, individual members of a union may wish a wage higher than the union-negotiated wage, but are prevented from making further requests; in a so-called closed shop which has a union security agreement, only the union has a right to decide matters for the individual union members such as wage rates. So, do the supposed "individual rights" of the workers prevail about the proper wage? Or do the "group rights" of the union regarding the proper wage prevail? Clearly this is a source of tension.

Other senses
Other distinctions between rights draw more on historical association or family resemblance than on precise philosophical distinctions. These include the distinction between civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights, between which the articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are often divided. Another conception of rights groups them into three generations. These distinctions have much overlap with that between negative and positive rights, as well as between individual rights and group rights, but these groupings are not entirely coextensive.

Rights and politics

In the United States, a person who is going to be questioned by police when he or she is in police custody must be read his or her "Miranda rights". The Miranda warning assumes people don't understand what their rights are so it requires police officers to read a statement to people being arrested which informs them that they have certain rights, such as the right to remain silent and the right to have an attorney. Rights are often included in the foundational questions governments and politics have been designed to deal with. Often the development of these socio-political institutions have formed a dialectical relationship with rights. Rights about particular issues, or the rights of particular groups, are often areas of special concern. Often these concerns arise when rights come into conflict with other legal or moral issues, sometimes even other rights. Issues of concern have historically included labor rights, LGBT rights, reproductive rights, disability rights, patient rights and prisoners' rights. With increasing monitoring and the information society, information rights, such as the right to privacy are becoming more important. Some examples of groups whose rights are of particular concern include animals,[29] and amongst humans, groups such as children[30] and youth, parents (both mothers and fathers), and men and women.[31] Accordingly, politics plays an important role in developing or recognizing the above rights, and the discussion about which behaviors are included as "rights" is an ongoing political topic of

importance. The concept of rights varies with political orientation. Positive rights such as a "right to medical care" are emphasized more often by left-leaning thinkers, while right-leaning thinkers place more emphasis on negative rights such as the "right to a fair trial". Further, the term equality which is often bound up with the meaning of "rights" often depends on one's political orientation. Conservatives and libertarians and advocates of free markets often identify equality with equality of opportunity, and want equal and fair rules in the process of making things, while agreeing that sometimes these fair rules lead to unequal outcomes. In contrast, socialists often identify equality with equality of outcome and see fairness when people have equal amounts of goods and services, and therefore think that people have a right to equal portions of necessities such as health care or economic assistance or housing.[32]

History of rights
See also: History of human rights

The Magna Carta or "Great Charter" was one of England's first documents containing commitments by a sovereign to his people to respect certain legal rights. It reduced the power of the monarch.

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in 1789 in France. The specific enumeration of rights has differed greatly in different periods of history. In many cases, the system of rights promulgated by one group has come into sharp and bitter conflict with

that of other groups. In the political sphere, a place in which rights have historically been an important issue, at present the question of who has what legal rights is sometimes addressed by the constitutions of the respective nations. Most historic notions of rights were authoritarian and hierarchical, with different people being granted different rights, and some having more rights than others. For instance, the right of a father to be respected by his son did not indicate a duty upon the father to return that respect, and the divine right of kings which permitted absolute power over subjects did not leave room for many rights to be granted to the subjects themselves.[33] In contrast, modern conceptions of rights often emphasize liberty and equality as among the most important aspects of rights, though conceptions of liberty (e.g. positive or negative) and equality (e.g. of opportunity or of outcome) frequently differ. Important documents in the political history of rights include:

The Constitution of Medina (622 AD; Arabia) instituted a number of rights and responsibilities for the Muslim, Jewish and pagan communities of Medina,[34] establishing freedom of worship for non-Muslims in return for extra taxes (the jizya), the security of women, a system for granting protection of individuals, and a judicial system. The Magna Carta (1215; England) required the King of England to renounce certain rights and respect certain legal procedures, and to accept that the will of the king could be bound by law. The Henrician Articles (1573; Poland-Lithuania) or King Henry's Articles were a permanent contract that stated the fundamental principles of governance and constitutional law in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, including the rights of the nobility to elect the king, to meet in parliament whose approval was required to levy taxes and declare war or peace, to religious liberty and the right to rebel in case the king transgressed against the laws of the republic or the rights of the nobility. The Bill of Rights (1689; England) declared that Englishmen, as embodied by Parliament, possess certain civil and political rights; the Claim of Right (1689; Scotland) was similar but distinct. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789; France) was one of the fundamental documents of the French Revolution, defining a set of individual rights and collective rights of the people. The United States Bill of Rights (17891791; United States), the first ten amendments of the United States Constitution specified rights of individuals in which government could not interfere, including the rights of free assembly, freedom of religion, trial by jury, and so forth. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) is an over-arching set of standards by which governments, organisations and individuals would measure their behaviour towards each other. The preamble declares that the "...recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world..." The European Convention on Human Rights (1950; Europe) was adopted under the auspices of the Council of Europe to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) is a follow-up to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, concerning civil and political rights. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966) is another follow-up to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, concerning economic, social and cultural rights. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982; Canada) was created to protect the rights of Canadian citizens from actions and policies of all levels of government. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2000) is one of the most recent proposed legal instruments concerning human rights.

Conscience is an aptitude, faculty, intuition, or judgment of the intellect that distinguishes right from wrong. Moral evaluations of this type may reference values or norms (principles and rules). In psychological terms conscience is often described as leading to feelings of remorse when a human does things that go against his/her moral values, and to feelings of rectitude or integrity when actions conform to such norms.[1] The extent to which conscience informs moral judgment before an action and whether such moral judgments are, or should be, based wholly in reason has occasioned debate through much of the history of Western philosophy.[2] Religious views of conscience usually see it as linked to a morality inherent in all humans, to a beneficent universe and/or to divinity. The diverse ritualistic, mythical, doctrinal, legal, institutional and material features of religion, may not necessarily cohere with experiential, emotive, spiritual or contemplative considerations about the origin and operation of conscience.[3] Common secular or scientific views regard the capacity for conscience as probably genetically determined, with its subject matter probably learned, or imprinted (like language) as part of a culture.[4] Commonly used metaphors for conscience include the "voice within" and the "inner light".[5] Conscience, as is detailed in sections below, is a major concept in national and international law,[6] is increasingly conceived of as applying to the world as a whole,[7] has motivated numerous notable acts for the public good[8] and been the subject of many prominent examples of literature, music and film.[9]

Contents
[hide]

1 Religious, secular and philosophical views about conscience o 1.1 Religious views o 1.2 Secular views 1.2.1 Neuroscience and artificial conscience 1.2.2 Conscience as society-forming instincts o 1.3 Philosophical views 1.3.1 Medieval philosophical views 1.3.2 Modern philosophical ideas 2 Conscientious acts and the law 3 World conscience

4 Notable examples of modern acts based on conscience 5 Conscience in literature, art, film and music 6 See also 7 References 8 External links

[edit] Religious, secular and philosophical views about conscience

Further information: Origins of morality and Morality Although humanity has no generally accepted definition of conscience or universal agreement about its role in ethical decision-making, three overlapping approaches have significantly addressed these issues:[2]
1. Religious views 2. Secular views 3. Philosophical views

[edit] Religious views

Further information: Religious belief, Philosophy of religion, and Spirituality

Seated Buddha, Gandhara, 2nd century CE. The Buddha linked conscience with compassion for those who must endure cravings and suffering in the world until right conduct culminates in right mindfulness and right contemplation. In some Hindu-derived spiritual systems (for example expressed in the Upanishads, Brahma Sutras and the Bhagavad Gita), conscience is the label given to attributes composing knowledge about

virtues and vices but also good and evil, that a soul acquires from the completion of acts and consequent accretion of karma over many, many lifetimes.[10] According to Adi Shankara in his Vivekachudamani morally right action (characterised as humbly and compassionately performing the primary duty of good to others without expectation of material or spiritual reward), helps "purify the heart" and provide mental tranquility, but it alone does not give us "direct perception of the Reality".[11] This knowledge requires discrimination between the eternal and non-eternal and eventually a realization in contemplation that the true individual self merges in an entire universe of pure consciousness.[12]

Marcus Aurelius bronze fragment, Louvre, Paris: "To move from one unselfish action to another with God in mind. Only there, delight and stillness." In the Zoroastrian faith, after death a soul must face judgment at the Bridge of the Separator; there, evil people are tormented by prior denial of their own higher nature, or conscience, and "to all time will they be guests for the House of the Lie."[13] The Chinese concept of Ren, indicates that conscience, along with social etiquette and correct relationships, assist humans to follow The Way (Tao) a mode of life reflecting the implicit human capacity for goodness and harmony.[14] Conscience also features prominently in Buddhism.[15] In the Pali scriptures, for example, Buddha links the positive aspect of conscience to a pure heart and a calm, well-directed mind: "when the mind is face to face with the Truth, a self-luminous spark of thought is revealed at the inner core of ourselves and, by analogy, all reality."[16] The Buddha also associated conscience with compassion for those who must endure cravings and suffering in the world until right conduct culminates in right mindfulness and right contemplation.[17] Santideva (685763 CE) wrote in the Bodhicaryavatara (which he composed and delivered in the great northern Indian Buddhist university of Nalanda) of the spiritual importance of perfecting virtues such as generosity, forbearance and training the awareness to be like a "block of wood" when attracted by vices such as pride or lust; so one can continue advancing towards right understanding in meditative absorption.[18] Conscience thus manifests in Buddhism as unselfish love for all living beings which gradually intensifies and awakens the mind to a purer awareness.[19] The Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius wrote in his Meditations that conscience was the human capacity to live by rational principles that were congruent with the true, tranquil and harmonious nature of our mind and thereby that of the Universe itself: "To move from one unselfish action to another with God in mind. Only there, delight and stillness...the only rewards of our existence here are an unstained character and unselfish acts."[20]

Last page of Ghazali's autobiography in MS Istanbul, Shehid Ali Pasha 1712, dated A.H. 509 = 11151116. Ghazali's crisis of epistemological skepticism was resolved by "a light which God Most High cast into my breast...the key to most knowledge." The Islamic concept of Taqwa is closely related to conscience. In the Qurn verses 2:197 & 22:37 Taqwa refers to "right conduct" or "piety", "guarding of oneself" or "guarding against evil".[21] Qurn verse 47:17 says that God is the ultimate source of the believer's taqw which is not simply the product of individual will, but requires inspiration from God.[22] In Qurn verses 91:78, God, the Almighty, talks about how He has perfected the soul, the conscience, and has taught it the wrong (fujoor) and right (taqw ). Hence, the awareness of vice and virtue is pre-built into the mechanism of the soul, allowing it to be tested fairly in the life of this world, and tried, held accountable on the day of judgment for responsibilities to God and all humans.[23]

Qurn. V49:1113: "come to know each other, the noblest of you, in the sight of God, are the ones possessing taqw".

Qurn verses 49:1113 state: "O humankind! We have created you out of male and female and constituted you into different groups and societies, so that you may come to know each other-the noblest of you, in the sight of God, are the ones possessing taqw." In Islam, according to eminent theologians such as Al-Ghazali, although events are pre-ordained (and written by God in al-Lawh al-Mahfz, the Preserved Tablet), humans possess free will to choose between wrong and right, and are thus responsible for their actions; the conscience being a dynamic personal connection to God enhanced by knowledge and practise of the Five Pillars of Islam, deeds of piety, repentance, self-discipline and prayer; and disintegrated and metaphorically covered in blackness through sinful acts.[24] Marshall Hodgson wrote the three-volume work: The Venture of Islam: Conscience and History in a World Civilization.[25] In the Christian tradition, John Calvin saw conscience as a battleground: "[...] the enemies who rise up in our conscience against his Kingdom and hinder his decrees prove that God's throne is not firmly established therein".[26] Many Christians regard following one's conscience as important as, or even more important than, obeying human authority.[27] A fundamentalist Christian view of conscience for example might be: 'God gave us our conscience so we would know when we break His Law; the guilt we feel when we do something wrong tells us that we need to repent.'[28] This can sometimes (as with the conflict between William Tyndale and Thomas More over the translation of the Bible into English) lead to moral quandaries: "Do I unreservedly obey my Church/priest/military/political leader, or do I follow my own inner feeling of right and wrong as instructed by prayer and a personal reading of scripture?"[29] Some contemporary Christian churches and religious groups hold the moral teachings of the Ten Commandments, or of Jesus, as the highest authority in any situation, regardless of the extent to which it involves responsibilities detailed by legislation.[30] In the Gospel of John (7:538:11) (King James Version) Jesus challenges those accusing a woman of adultery stating: "'He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.' And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one" (see Jesus and the woman taken in adultery). In the Gospel of Luke (10: 2537) Jesus tells the story of how a despised and heretical Samaritan (see Parable of the Good Samaritan) who (out of compassion and conscience) helps an injured stranger beside a road, qualifies better for eternal life by loving his neighbor, than a priest who passes by on the other side.[31]

Nikiforos Lytras, Antigone in front of the dead Polynices (1865), oil on canvas, National Gallery of Greece-Alexandros Soutzos Museum. This dilemma of obedience in conscience to divine or state law, was demonstrated dramatically in Antigone's defiance of King Creon's order against burying her brother an alleged traitor, appealing to the "unwritten law" and to a "longer allegiance to the dead than to the living".[32]

Catholic theology sees conscience as "a judgment of reason which at the appropriate moment enjoins [a person] to do good and to avoid evil".[33] Catholics are called to examine their conscience daily, and with special care before confession. In current Catholic teaching, "Man has the right to act according to his conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters".[34] This right of conscience does not, however, simply allow one to summarily disagree with a church teaching and claim that they are acting in accordance with conscience: "It can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed... This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility... In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits."[35] In certain situations involving individual personal decisions that are incompatible with church law, some pastors rely on the use of the internal forum solution. However, the Catholic Church has warned that "rejection of the Church's authority and her teaching...can be at the source of errors in judgment in moral conduct".[36] Judaism arguably does not require uncompromising obedience to religious authority; the case has been made that throughout Jewish history rabbis have circumvented laws they found unconscionable, such as capital punishment.[37] Similarly, although a preoccupation with national destiny has been central to the Jewish faith (see Zionism) many scholars (including Moses Mendelssohn) stated that conscience as a personal revelation of scriptural truth was an important adjunct to the Talmudic tradition.[38][39] The concept of inner light in the Religious Society of Friends or Quakers is associated with conscience.[5] Freemasonry describes itself as providing an adjunct to religion and key symbols found in a Freemason Lodge are the square and compasses explained as providing lessons that Masons should "square their actions by the square of conscience", learn to "circumscribe their desires and keep their passions within due bounds toward all mankind."[40] The historian Manning Clark viewed conscience as one of the comforters that religion placed between man and death, but also a crucial part of the quest for grace encouraged, for example, by the Book of Job and the Book of Ecclesiastes, leading us to be paradoxically closest to the truth when we suspect that what matters most in life ("being there when everyone suddenly understands what it has all been for") can never happen.[41] Leo Tolstoy, after a decade studying the issue (18771887), held that the only power capable of resisting the evil associated with both materialism and the drive for social power of religious institutions, was the capacity of humans to reach an individual spiritual truth through reason and conscience.[42] Many prominent religious works about conscience also have a significant philosophical component: examples are the works of Al-Ghazali,[43] Avicenna,[44] Aquinas,[45] Joseph Butler[46] and Dietrich Bonhoeffer[47] (all discussed in the philosophical views section).

[edit] Secular views

Further information: Psychology and Sociology

Franois Chifflart (18251901). La Conscience (after Victor Hugo)

The secular approach to conscience includes psychological, physiological, sociological, humanitarian and authoritarian views.[1] Lawrence Kohlberg considered critical conscience to be an important psychological stage in the proper moral development of humans, associated with the capacity to rationally weigh principles of responsibility, being best encouraged in the very young by linkage with humorous personifications (such as Jiminy Cricket) and later in adolescents by debates about individually pertinent moral dilemmas.[48] Erik Erikson placed the development of conscience in the 'pre-schooler' phase of his eight stages of normal human personality development.[49] The psychologist Martha Stout terms conscience "an intervening sense of obligation based in our emotional attachments."[50] Thus a good conscience is associated with feelings of integrity, psychological wholeness and peacefulness and is often described using adjectives such as "quiet", "clear" and "easy".[51] Sigmund Freud regarded conscience as originating psychologically from the growth of civilisation, which periodically frustrated the external expression of aggression: this destructive impulse being forced to seek an alternative, healthy outlet, directed its energy as a superego against the person's own "ego" or selfishness (often taking its cue in this regard from parents during childhood).[52] According to Freud, the consequence of not obeying our conscience is guilt, which can be a factor in the development of neurosis; Freud claimed that both the cultural and individual super-ego set up strict ideal demands with regard to the moral aspects of certain decisions, disobedience to which provokes a 'fear of conscience'.[53]

Charles Darwin thought that any animal endowed with well-marked social instincts would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience, as its intellectual powers approximated man's. In his book The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins states that he agrees with Robert Hinde's Why Good is Good, Michael Shermer's The Science of Good and Evil, Robert Buckman's Can We Be Good Without God? and Marc Hauser's Moral Minds, that our sense of right and wrong can be derived from our Darwinian past.[54] Christopher Hitchens in God is Not Great has argued that "Modern vernacular describes conscience- not too badly- as whatever it is that makes us behave well when nobody is looking...Those who believe that the existence of conscience is a proof of a

godly design are advancing an argument that simply cannot be disproved because there is no evidence for or against it." [55] [edit] Neuroscience and artificial conscience

ASIMO robot is an artificial conscience essential for artificial intelligence? Numerous case studies of brain damage have shown that damage to specific areas of the brain (such as the anterior prefrontal cortex) results in the reduction or elimination of inhibitions, with a corresponding radical change in behaviour patterns.[56] When the damage occurs to adults, they may still be able to perform moral reasoning; but when it occurs to children, they may never develop that ability.[57][58] Modern-day scientists in the fields of ethology, neuroscience and evolutionary psychology seek to explain conscience as a function of the brain that evolved to facilitate reciprocal altruism within societies.[59] Attempts have been made by neuroscientists to locate the free will necessary for the veto of conscience to operate, for example, in a measurable awareness of an intention to carry out an act that occurs about 350400 microseconds after the electrical discharge known as the 'readiness potential.' [60][61] Jacques Pitrat claims that some kind of artificial conscience is beneficial in Artificial intelligence systems to improve their long-term performance and direct their introspective processing.[62] [edit] Conscience as society-forming instincts

Jeremy Bentham: "Fanaticism has pressed conscience into its service." Those supporting this approach to conscience argue that people have a set of instincts and drives which enable them to form societies: groups of humans without these drives, or in whom they are insufficiently strong, cannot form cohesive societies and do not reproduce their kind as successfully as those that do.[63]

War criminal Adolf Eichmann in passport used to enter Argentina: his conscience spoke with the "respectable voice" of the indoctrinated wartime German society about him. Charles Darwin, for example, considered that conscience evolved in man as an outcome of having to resolve conflicts between competing natural impulses-some about self preservation, but others increasingly about safety of a family or community; the claim of conscience to moral authority, thought Darwin, emerged from the "greater duration of impression of social instincts" in the struggle for survival.[64] In such a view, behavior destructive to a person's society (either to its structures, or to the persons it comprises) is bad or "evil."[65] Thus, conscience can be viewed as an outcome of those biological drives that prompt humans to avoid provoking fear or contempt in others; being experienced as guilt and shame in differing ways from society to society, and person to person.[66] A requirement of conscience, under this approach, is the capacity to see ourselves from the point of view of another person.[67] Persons unable to do this (psychopaths, sociopaths, narcissists) therefore often act in ways which are "evil."[68] A central requirement of this view of conscience is that humans consider some "other" as being in a social relationship. Thus, nationalism is invoked in conscience to quell tribal conflict, and the notion of a Brotherhood of Man is invoked to quell national conflicts. Yet such crowd drives may not only overwhelm but redefine individual conscience. Friedrich Nietzsche, for example, stated that: "communal solidarity is annihilated by the highest and strongest drives that, when they break out passionately, whip the individual far past the average low level of the 'herd-conscience.'[69] Jeremy Bentham likewise noted that: "fanaticism never sleeps...it is never stopped by conscience; for it has pressed conscience into its service."[70] Hannah Arendt in her study of the trial of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem, notes that the accused, as with almost all his fellow Germans, had lost track of his conscience to the point where they hardly remembered it; this wasn't caused by familiarity with atrocities, or by psychologically redirecting any resultant natural pity to themselves for having to bear such an unpleasant duty, so much as by the fact that anyone whose conscience did develop doubts could see no one, no one at all, who shared them: "Eichmann did not need to close his ears to the voice of conscience...not because he had none, but because his conscience spoke with a "respectable voice", with the voice of the respectable society around him". [71] An interesting area of research in this context concerns the similarities between our relationships and those of animals, whether animals in human society (pets, working animals, even animals grown for food) or in the wild.[72] One idea is that as people or animals perceive a social relationship as important to preserve, their conscience begins to respect that former "other", and urge actions that protect it.[73][74] Similarly, in complex territorial and cooperative breeding bird communities (such as the Australian magpie) that have a high degree of etiquettes, rules, hierarchies, play, songs and negotiations, rule-breaking seems tolerated on occasions not obviously related to survival of the individual or group; behaviour often appearing to exhibit a touching gentleness and tenderness.[75]

[edit] Philosophical views

Further information: Free will, Compatibilism and incompatibilism, Determinism, Libertarianism (metaphysics), Theory of justification, Virtue ethics, Metaethics, Moral motivation, and Normative ethics The word "conscience" derives etymologically from the Latin conscientia, meaning "privity of knowledge"[76] or "with-knowledge". The English word implies internal awareness of a moral standard in the mind concerning the quality of one's motives, as well as a consciousness of our own actions.[77] Thus conscience considered philosophically may be first, and perhaps most commonly, a largely unexamined "gut feeling" or "vague sense of guilt" about what ought to be, or should have been, done. Conscience in this sense is not necessarily the end product of any sustained process of personal rational consideration of the moral features of a problematic situation (or the applicable normative principles, rules or laws) and can arise from prior parental, peer group, religious, state or corporate indoctrination, which may or may not be presently consciously acceptable to the person ("traditional conscience").[78] Second, however, conscience may be defined as the practical reason employed when applying seriously thought out moral convictions to such a situation ("critical conscience").[79] Third, particularly in purportedly morally mature mystical people who have developed this capacity through daily contemplation or meditation combined with selfless service to others, critical conscience can be aided by a "spark" of intuitive insight or revelation (called, for example, marifa in Islamic Sufi philosophy and synderesis in medieval Christian scholastic moral philosophy).[80][81] Conscience is accompanied in each case by an internal awareness of 'inner light' and approbation or 'inner darkness' and condemnation, as well as a resulting conviction of right or duty either followed or declined.[82] [edit] Medieval philosophical views

The medieval Islamic physician Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi taught of an interaction between conscience and physical health The medieval Islamic scholar and mystic Al-Ghazali divided the concept of Nafs (soul or self (spirituality)) into three categories[43] based on the Quran: 1. Nafs Ammarah (12:53) which "exhorts one to freely indulge in gratifying passions and instigates to do evil" 2. Nafs Lawammah (75:2) which is "the conscience that directs man towards right or wrong"

3. Nafs Mutmainnah (89:27) which is "a self that reaches the ultimate peace" The medieval Islamic philosopher and physician Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi believed in a close relationship between conscience or spiritual integrity and physical health; thus, rather than being self-indulgent, man should pursue knowledge, utilise his intellect and apply justice in his life.[83] The medieval Islamic philosopher Avicenna, whilst imprisoned in the castle of Fardajan near Hamadhan, wrote his famous isolated-but-awake "Floating Man" sensory deprivation thought experiment to explore the ideas of human self-awareness and the substantiality of the soul; his hypothesis being that it is through intelligence, particularly the active intellect, that God communicates truth to the human mind or conscience.[44] According to the Islamic Sufis conscience allows Allah to guide people to the marifa, the peace or "light upon light" experienced where a Muslim's prayers lead to a melting away of the self in the inner knowledge of God; this being an important precursor of the eternal Paradise depicted in the Qurn.[84]

The Flemish mystic Jan van Ruysbroeck viewed a pure conscience as facilitating "an outflowing losing of oneself in the abyss of that eternal object which is the highest and chief blessedness" Some medieval Christian scholastics such as Bonaventure made a distinction between conscience as a rational faculty of the mind (practical reason) and inner awareness, an intuitive "spark" to do good, called synderesis arising from a remnant appreciation of absolute good and when consciously denied (for example to perform an evil act), becoming a source of inner torment.[81] Early modern theologians such as William Perkins and William Ames developed a syllogistic understanding of the conscience, where God's law made the first term, the act to be judged the second, and the action of the conscience (as a rational faculty) produced the judgement. By debating test cases applying such understanding conscience was trained and refined (i.e. casuistry).
[85]

The medieval Islamic philosopher Ibn Sina (Avicenna) developed a sensory deprivation thought experiment to explore the relationship between conscience and God In the 13th century, St. Thomas Aquinas regarded conscience as God-given "reason attempting to make right decisions" with the assistance of synderesis, the innate remnant awareness of absolute good, which he categorised as involving the five primary precepts proposed in his theory of Natural Law.[45] Conscience, or conscientia was an imperfect process of judgment applied to activity because knowledge of the natural law (and all acts of natural virtue implicit therein) was obscured and perverted in most people by education and custom that promoted selfishness rather than fellow-feeling (Summa Theologiae, III, I).[86] Aquinas also discussed conscience in relation to the virtue of prudence to explain why some people appear to be less "morally enlightened" than others, their weak will being incapable of adequately balancing their own needs with those of others.[87] Aquinas reasoned that acting contrary to conscience is an evil action, but an erring conscience is only truly blameworthy if it is the result of culpable or vincible ignorance of factors that one has a duty to have knowledge of.[86] Aquinas also argued that conscience should be educated to act towards real goods (from God) which encouraged human flourishing, rather than the apparent goods of sensory pleasures.[86] In his Commentary on Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics Aquinas claimed it was weak will that allowed a non-virtuous man to prioritise a principle allowing pleasure ahead of one requiring moral constraint.[88] Thomas A Kempis in the medieval contemplative classic The Imitation of Christ (ca 1418) stated that the glory of a good man is the witness of a good conscience. "Preserve a quiet conscience", he wrote "and you will always have joy. A quiet conscience can endure much, and remains joyful in all trouble, but an evil conscience is always fearful and uneasy."[89] The anonymous medieval author of the Christian mystical work The Cloud of Unknowing similarly expressed the view that in profound and prolonged contemplation a soul dries up the "root and ground" of the sin that is always there, even after one's confession, and however busy one is in holy things: "therefore, whoever would work at becoming a contemplative must first cleanse his [or her] conscience."[90] The medieval Flemish mystic John of Ruysbroeck likewise held that true conscience has four aspects that are necessary to render a man just in the active and contemplative life: first, "a free spirit, attracting itself through love"; second, "an intellect enlightened by grace", third "a delight

yielding propension or inclination" and fourth "an outflowing losing of oneself in the abyss of...that eternal object which is the highest and chief blessedness...those lofty amongst men, are absorbed in it, and immersed in a certain boundless thing."[91] [edit] Modern philosophical ideas

Benedict de Spinoza: moral problems and our emotional responses to them should be reasoned from the perspective of eternity. Benedict de Spinoza in his Ethics, published after his death in 1677, argued that most people, even those that consider themselves to exercise free will, make moral decisions on the basis of imperfect sensory information, inadequate understanding of their mind and will, as well as emotions which are both outcomes of their contingent physical existence and forms of thought defective from being chiefly impelled by self-preservation.[92] The solution, according to Spinoza, was to gradually increase the capacity of our reason to change the forms of thought produced by emotions and to fall in love with viewing problems requiring moral decision from the perspective of eternity.[93] Thus, living a life of peaceful conscience means to Spinoza that reason is used to generate adequate ideas where the mind increasingly sees the world and its conflicts, our desires and passions sub specie aeternitatis, that is without reference to time.[94] Hegel's obscure and mystical Philosophy of Mind held that the absolute right of freedom of conscience facilitates human understanding of an all-embracing unity, an absolute which was rational, real and true.[95] Nevertheless, Hegel thought that a functioning State would always be tempted not to recognize conscience in its form of subjective knowledge, just as similar non-objective opinions are generally rejected in science.[96] A similar idealist notion was expressed in the writings of Joseph Butler who argued that conscience is God-given, should always be obeyed, is intuitive, and should be considered the "constitutional monarch" and the "universal moral faculty": "conscience does not only offer itself to show us the way we should walk in, but it likewise carries its own authority with it."[97] Butler advanced ethical speculation by referring to a duality of regulative principles in human nature: first,"self-love" (seeking individual happiness) and second, "benevolence" (compassion and seeking good for another) in conscience (also linked to the agape of situational ethics).[46] Conscience tended to be more authoritative in questions of moral judgment, thought Butler, because it was more likely to be clear and certain (whereas calculations of self-interest tended to probable and changing conclusions).[98] John Selden in his Table Talk expressed the view that an awake but excessively scrupulous or ill-trained conscience could hinder resolve and practical action; it being "like a horse that is not well wayed, he starts at every bird that flies out of the hedge".[99]

Schopenhauer considered that the good conscience we experience after an unselfish act verifies that our true self exists outside our physical person As the sacred texts of ancient Hindu and Buddhist philosophy became available in German translations in the 18th and 19th centuries, they influenced philosophers such as Schopenhauer to hold that in a healthy mind only deeds oppress our conscience, not wishes and thoughts; "for it is only our deeds that hold us up to the mirror of our will"; the good conscience, thought Schopenhauer, we experience after every disinterested deed arises from direct recognition of our own inner being in the phenomenon of another, it affords us the verification "that our true self exists not only in our own person, this particular manifestation, but in everything that lives. By this the heart feels itself enlarged, as by egotism it is contracted."[100]

Immanuel Kant: the moral law within us has true infinity. Immanuel Kant, a central figure of the Age of Enlightenment, likewise claimed that two things filled his mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the oftener and more steadily they were reflected on: "the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me...the latter begins from my invisible self, my personality, and exhibits me in a world which has true infinity but which I recognise myself as existing in a universal and necessary (and not only, as in the first case, contingent) connection."[101] The 'universal connection' referred to here is Kant's categorical imperative: "act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."[102] Kant considered critical conscience to be an internal court in which our thoughts accuse or excuse one another; he acknowledged that morally mature people do often

describe contentment or peace in the soul after following conscience to perform a duty, but argued that for such acts to produce virtue their primary motivation should simply be duty, not expectation of any such bliss.[103] Rousseau expressed a similar view that conscience somehow connected man to a greater metaphysical unity. John Plamenatz in his critical examination of Rousseau's work considered that conscience was there defined as the feeling that urges us, in spite of contrary passions, towards two harmonies: the one within our minds and between our passions, and the other within society and between its members; "the weakest can appeal to it in the strongest, and the appeal, though often unsuccessful, is always disturbing. However, corrupted by power or wealth we may be, either as possessors of them or as victims, there is something in us serving to remind us that this corruption is against nature."[104]

Adam Smith: conscience shows what relates to ourselves in its proper shape and dimensions Other philosophers expressed a more sceptical and pragmatic view of the operation of "conscience" in society.[105]

John Locke viewed the widespread social fact of conscience as a justification for natural rights. John Locke in his Essays on the Law of Nature argued that the widespread fact of human conscience allowed a philosopher to infer the necessary existence of objective moral laws that occasionally might contradict those of the state.[106] Locke highlighted the metaethics problem of whether accepting a statement like "follow your conscience" supports subjectivist or objectivist conceptions of conscience as a guide in concrete morality, or as a spontaneous revelation of eternal and immutable principles to the individual: "if conscience be a proof of innate principles, contraries may be innate principles; since some men with the same bent of conscience prosecute what others avoid."[107] Thomas Hobbes likewise pragmatically noted that opinions formed on the basis of conscience with full and honest conviction, nevertheless should always be accepted with humility as potentially erroneous and not necessarily indicating absolute knowledge or truth.[108] William Godwin expressed the view that conscience was a memorable consequence of the "perception by men of every creed when the descend into the scene of busy life" that they possess free will.[109] Adam Smith considered that it was only by developing a critical conscience that we can ever see what relates to ourselves in its proper shape and dimensions; or that we can ever make

any proper comparison between our own interests and those of other people.[110] John Stuart Mill believed that idealism about the role of conscience in government should be tempered with a practical realisation that few men in society are capable of directing their minds or purposes towards distant or unobvious interests, of disinterested regard for others, and especially for what comes after them, for the idea of posterity, of their country, or of mankind, whether grounded on sympathy or on a conscientious feeling.[111] Mill held that certain amount of conscience, and of disinterested public spirit, may fairly be calculated on in the citizens of any community ripe for representative government, but that "it would be ridiculous to expect such a degree of it, combined with such intellectual discernment, as would be proof against any plausible fallacy tending to make that which was for their class interest appear the dictate of justice and of the general good."[111] Josiah Royce (18551916) built on the transcendental idealism view of conscience, viewing it as the ideal of life which constitutes our moral personality, our plan of being ourself, of making common sense ethical decisions. But, he thought, this was only true insofar as our conscience also required loyalty to "a mysterious higher or deeper self."[112]

Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1932) In the modern Christian tradition this approach achieved expression with Dietrich Bonhoeffer who stated during his imprisonment by the Nazis in WWII that conscience for him was more than practical reason, indeed it came from a "depth which lies beyond a man's own will and his own reason and it makes itself heard as the call of human existence to unity with itself."[113] For Bonhoeffer a guilty conscience arose as an indictment of the loss of this unity and as a warning against the loss of one's self; primarily, he thought, it is directed not towards a particular kind of doing but towards a particular mode of being. It protests against a doing which imperils the unity of this being with itself.[47] Conscience for Bonhoeffer did not, like shame, embrace or pass judgment on the morality of the whole of its owner's life; it reacted only to certain definite actions: "it recalls what is long past and represents this disunion as something which is already accomplished and irreparable".[114] The man with a conscience, he believed, fights a lonely battle against the "overwhelming forces of inescapable situations" which demand moral decisions despite the likelihood of adverse consequences.[114]Simon Soloveychik has similarly claimed that the truth distributed in the world, as the statement about human dignity, as the affirmation of the line between good and evil, lives in people as conscience.[115]

Hannah Arendt: a bad conscience does not necessarily signify a bad character As Hannah Arendt pointed out, however, (following the utilitarian John Stuart Mill on this point): a bad conscience does not necessarily signify a bad character; in fact only those who affirm a commitment to applying moral standards will be troubled with remorse, guilt or shame by a bad conscience and their need to regain integrity and wholeness of the self.[116][117] Representing our soul or true self by analogy as our house, Arendt wrote that "conscience is the anticipation of the fellow who awaits you if and when you come home."[118] Arendt believed that people who are unfamiliar with the process of silent critical reflection about what they say and do will not mind contradicting themselves by an immoral act or crime, since they can "count on its being forgotten the next moment;" bad people are not full of regrets.[118] Arendt also wrote eloquently on the problem of languages distinguishing the word consciousness from conscience. One reason, she held, was that conscience, as we understand it in moral or legal matters, is supposedly always present within us, just like consciousness: "and this conscience is also supposed to tell us what to do and what to repent; before it became the lumen naturale or Kant's practical reason, it was the voice of God."[119]

Albert Einstein associated conscience with suprapersonal thoughts, feelings and aspirations. Albert Einstein, as a self-professed adherent of humanism and rationalism, likewise viewed an enlightened religious person as one whose conscience reflects that he "has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings and aspirations to which he clings because of their super-personal value."[120] Einstein often referred to the "inner voice" as a source of both moral and physical knowledge: "Quantum mechanics is very impressive. But an inner voice tells me that it is not the real thing. The theory produces a good deal but hardly brings one closer to the secrets of the Old One. I am at all events convinced that He does not play dice."[121]

Simone Weil who fought for the French resistance (the Maquis) argued in her final book The Need for Roots: Prelude to a Declaration of Duties Towards Mankind that for society to become more just and protective of liberty, obligations should take precedence over rights in moral and political philosophy and a spiritual awakening should occur in the conscience of most citizens, so that social obligations are viewed as fundamentally having a transcendent origin and a beneficent impact on human character when fulfilled.[122][123] Simone Weil also in that work provided a psychological explanation for the mental peace associated with a good conscience: "the liberty of men of goodwill, though limited in the sphere of action, is complete in that of conscience. For, having incorporated the rules into their own being, the prohibited possibilities no longer present themselves to the mind, and have not to be rejected."[124] Alternatives to such metaphysical and idealist opinions about conscience arose from realist and materialist perspectives such as those of Charles Darwin. Darwin suggested that "any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts, the parental and filial affections being here included, would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience, as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well, or as nearly as well developed, as in man."[125] mile Durkheim held that the soul and conscience were particular forms of an impersonal principle diffused in the relevant group and communicated by totemic ceremonies.[126] AJ Ayer was a more recent realist who held that the existence of conscience was an empirical question to be answered by sociological research into the moral habits of a given person or group of people, and what causes them to have precisely those habits and feelings. Such an inquiry, he believed, fell wholly within the scope of the existing social sciences.[127] George Edward Moore bridged the idealistic and sociological views of 'critical' and 'traditional' conscience in stating that the idea of abstract 'rightness' and the various degrees of the specific emotion excited by it are what constitute, for many persons, the specifically 'moral sentiment' or conscience. For others, however, an action seems to be properly termed 'internally right', merely because they have previously regarded it as right, the idea of 'rightness' being present in some way to his or her mind, but not necessarily among his or her deliberately constructed motives.[128]

Simone de Beauvoir: reflected that her dying mother had made every sacrifice but her feelings did not take her out of herself The French philosopher Simone de Beauvoir in A Very Easy Death (Une mort trs douce, 1964) reflects within her own conscience about her mother's attempts to develop such a moral sympathy and understanding of others.[129]
"The sight of her tears grieved me; but I soon realised that she was weeping over her failure, without caring about what was happening inside me...We might still have come to an understanding if, instead of asking everybody to

pray for my soul, she had given me a little confidence and sympathy. I know now what prevented her from doing so: she had too much to pay back, too many wounds to salve, to put herself in another's place. In actual doing she made every sacrifice, but her feelings did not take her out of herself. Besides, how could she have tried to understand me since she avoided looking into her own heart? As for discovering an attitude that would not have set us apart, nothing in her life had ever prepared her for such a thing: the unexpected sent her into a panic, because she had been taught never to think, act or feel except in a ready-made framework." Simone de Beauvoir. A Very Easy Death. Penguin Books. London. 1982. p. 60.

Michael Walzer claimed that the growth of religious toleration in Western nations arose amongst other things, from the general recognition that private conscience signified some inner divine presence regardless of the religious faith professed and from the general respectability, piety, selflimitation, and sectarian discipline which marked most of the men who claimed the rights of conscience.[130] Walzer also argued that attempts by courts to define conscience as a merely personal moral code or as sincere belief, risked encouraging an anarchy of moral egotisms, unless such a code and motive was necessarily tempered with shared moral knowledge: derived either from the connection of the individual to a universal spiritual order, or from the common principles and mutual engagements of unselfish people.[131] Ronald Dworkin maintains that constitutional protection of freedom of conscience is central to democracy but creates personal duties to live up to it: "Freedom of conscience presupposes a personal responsibility of reflection, and it loses much of its meaning when that responsibility is ignored. A good life need not be an especially reflective one; most of the best lives are just lived rather than studied. But there are moments that cry out for self-assertion, when a passive bowing to fate or a mechanical decision out of deference or convenience is treachery, because it forfeits dignity for ease."[132] Edward Conze stated it is important for individual and collective moral growth that we recognise the illusion of our conscience being wholly located in our body; indeed both our conscience and wisdom expand when we act in an unselfish way and conversely "repressed compassion results in an unconscious sense of guilt."[133]

United Nations Secretary General Dag Hammarskjld wrote his diary Vgmrken (Markings) as a means of understanding how conscience informed his public life. The philosopher Peter Singer considers that usually when we describe an action as conscientious in the critical sense we do so in order to deny either that the relevant agent was motivated by selfish desires, like greed or ambition, or that he acted on whim or impulse.[134]

Peter Singer: distinguished between immature "traditional" and highly reasoned "critical" conscience Moral anti-realists debate whether the moral facts necessary to activate conscience supervene on natural facts with a posteriori necessity; or arise a priori because moral facts have a primary intension and naturally identical worlds may be presumed morally identical.[135] It has also been argued that there is a measure of moral luck in how circumstances create the obstacles which conscience must overcome to apply moral principles or human rights and that with the benefit of enforceable property rights and the rule of law, access to universal health care plus the absence of high adult and infant mortality from conditions such as malaria, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS and famine, people in relatively prosperous developed countries have been spared pangs of conscience associated with the physical necessity to steal scraps of food, bribe tax inspectors or police officers, and commit murder in guerrilla wars against corrupt government forces or rebel armies. [136] Scrutton has claimed that true understanding of conscience and its relationship with morality has been hampered by an "impetuous" belief that philosophical questions are solved through the analysis of language in an area where clarity threatens vested interests.[137] Susan Sontag similarly argued that it was a symptom of psychological immaturity not to recognise that many morally immature people willingly experience a form of delight, in some an erotic breaking of taboo, when witnessing violence, suffering and pain being inflicted on others.[138] Jonathan Glover wrote that most of us "do not spend our lives on endless landscape gardening of our self" and our conscience is likely shaped not so much by heroic struggles, as by choice of partner, friends and job, as well as where we choose to live.[139] Garrett Hardin in a famous article called tragedy of the commons argued that any instance in which society appeals to an individual exploiting a commons to restrain himself or herself for the general good-by means of his or her conscience- merely sets up a system which, by selectively diverting societal power and physical resources to those lacking in conscience, while fostering guilt (including anxiety about his or her individual contribution to over-population) in people acting upon it, actually works toward the elimination of conscience from the race.[140][141]

John Ralston Saul: consumers risk turning over their conscience to technical experts and to the ideology of free markets

John Ralston Saul expressed the view in The Unconscious Civilization that in contemporary developed nations many people have acquiesced in turning over their sense of right and wrong, their critical conscience, to technical experts; willingly restricting their moral freedom of choice to limited consumer actions ruled by the ideology of the free market, while citizen participation in public affairs is limited to the isolated act of voting and private-interest lobbying turns even elected representatives against the public interest.[142]

Emmanuel Levinas: welcoming of the Other is conscience Some argue on religious or philosophical grounds that it is blameworthy to act against conscience, even if the judgement of conscience is likely to be erroneous (say because it is inadequately informed about the facts, or prevailing moral (humanist or religious), professional ethical, legal and human rights norms).[143] Failure to acknowledge and accept that conscientious judgements can be seriously mistaken, may only promote situations where one's conscience is manipulated by others to provide unwarranted justifications for non-virtuous and selfish acts; indeed, insofar as it is appealed to as glorifying ideological content, and an associated extreme level of devotion, without adequate constraint of external, altruistic, normative justification, conscience may be considered morally blind and dangerous both to the individual concerned and humanity as a whole. [144] Langston argues that philosophers of virtue ethics have unnecessarily neglected conscience for, once conscience is trained so that the principles and rules it applies are those one would want all others to live by, its practise cultivates and sustains the virtues; indeed, amongst people in what each society considers to be the highest state of moral development there is little disagreement about how to act.[2]Emmanuel Levinas viewed conscience as a revelatory encountering of resistance to our selfish powers, developing morality by calling into question our naive sense of freedom of will to use such powers arbitrarily, or with violence, this process being more severe the more rigorously the goal of our self was to obtain control.[145] In other words, the welcoming of the Other, to Levinas, was the very essence of conscience properly conceived; it encouraged our ego to accept the fallibility of assuming things about other people, that selfish freedom of will "does not have the last word" and that realising this has a transcendent purpose: "I am not alone...in conscience I have an experience that is not commensurate with any a priori [see a priori and a posteriori] framework-a conceptless experience."[145]

[edit] Conscientious acts and the law

Further information: Conscientious objector, Civil disobedience, Natural law, Natural rights, Nonviolence, and Prisoner of conscience

Aung San Suu Kyi of Burma, winner of the 2009 Amnesty International Ambassador of Conscience Award. A conscience vote in a parliament allows legislators to vote without restrictions from any political party to which they may belong.[146] In his trial in Jerusalem Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann claimed he was simply following legal orders under paragraph 48 of the German Military Code which provided: "punishability of an action or omission is not excused on the ground that the person considered his behaviour required by his conscience or the prescripts of his religion".[147] The United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) which is part of international customary law specifically refers to conscience in Articles 1 and 18.[6] Likewise, the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) mentions conscience in Article 18.1.[148] All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood United Nations, Universal Declaration on Human Rights Article 1 Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance United Nations, Universal Declaration on Human Rights Article 18 Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching United Nations, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 18.1 It has been argued that these articles provide international legal obligations protecting conscientious objectors from service in the military.[149]

Lester Ott, conscientious objector during the First World War.

Henry David Thoreau: Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? John Rawls in his Theory of Justice defines a conscientious objector as an individual prepared to undertake, in public (and often despite widespread condemnation), an action of civil disobedience to a legal rule justifying it (also in public) by reference to contrary foundational social virtues (such as justice as liberty or fairness) and the principles of morality and law derived from them.[150] Rawls considered civil disobedience should be viewed as an appeal, warning or admonishment (showing general respect and fidelity to the rule of law by the non-violence and transparency of methods adopted) that a law breaches a community's fundamental virtue of justice.[150] Objections to Rawls' theory include first, its inability to accommodate conscientious objections to the society's basic appreciation of justice or to emerging moral or ethical principles (such as respect for the rights of the natural environment) which are not yet part of it and second, the difficulty of predictably and consistently determining that a majority decision is just or unjust.[151] Conscientious objection (also called conscientious refusal or evasion) to obeying a law, should not arise from unreasoning, naive "traditional conscience", for to do so merely encourages infantile abdication of responsibility to calibrate the law against moral or human rights norms and disrespect for democratic institutions.[152] Instead it should be based on "critical conscience' seriously thought out, conceptually mature, personal moral or religious beliefs held to be fundamentally incompatible (that is, not merely inconsistent on the basis of selfish desires, whim or impulse), for example, either with all laws requiring conscription for military service, or legal compulsion to fight for or financially support the State in a particular war.[153] A famous example arose when Henry David Thoreau the author of Walden was willingly jailed for refusing to pay a tax because he profoundly disagreed with a government policy and was frustrated by the corruption and injustice of the democratic machinery of the state.[154]
"Unjust laws exist; shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavour to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once?...A man has not everything to do but something; and because he cannot do everything, it is not necessary that he should do something wrong...It is for no particular item in the tax bill that I refuse to pay it. I simply wish to refuse allegiance to the State, to withdraw and stand aloof from it effectually. I do not care to trace the course of my dollar if I could, till it buys a man, or a musket to shoot one with-the dollar is innocent-but I am concerned to trace the effects of my allegiance...Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then?" Henry David Thoreau. Civil Disobedience. 1848. reprinted Signet Classic, New York. 1960 pp. 228, 229, 236.

In the Second World War, Great Britain granted conscientious-objection status not just to complete pacifists, but to those who objected to fighting in that particular war; this was done partly out of genuine respect, but also to avoid the disgraceful and futile persecutions of conscientious objectors that occurred during the First World War.[155]

Amnesty International protects prisoners of conscience. Stamp from Faroe Islands, 1986. Amnesty International organises campaigns to protect those arrested and or incarcerated as a prisoner of conscience because of their conscientious beliefs, particularly concerning intellectual, political and artistic freedom of expression and association.[156] In legislation, a conscience clause is a provision in a statute that excuses a health professional from complying with the law (for example legalising surgical or pharmaceutical abortion) if it is incompatible with religious or conscientious beliefs.[157] Expressed justifications for refusing to obey laws because of conscience vary. Many conscientious objectors are so for religious reasonsnotably, members of the historic peace churches are pacifist by doctrine. Other objections can stem from a deep sense of responsibility toward humanity as a whole, or from the conviction that even acceptance of work under military orders acknowledges the principle of conscription that should be everywhere condemned before the world can ever become safe for real democracy.[158] A conscientious objector, however, does not have a primary aim of changing the law.[150] John Dewey considered that conscientious objectors were often the victims of "moral innocency" and inexpertness in moral training: "the moving force of events is always too much for conscience".[159] The remedy was not to deplore the wickedness of those who manipulate world power, but to connect conscience with forces moving in another direction- to build institutions and social environments predicated on the rule of law, for example, "then will conscience itself have compulsive power instead of being forever the martyred and the coerced."[159] As an example, Albert Einstein who had advocated conscientious objection during the First World War and had been a longterm supporter of War Resisters' International reasoned that "radical pacifism" could not be justified in the face of Nazi rearmament and advocated a world federalist organization with its own professional army.[160]

Samuel Johnson (1775) stated that "No man's conscience can tell him the right of another man." Samuel Johnson pointed out that an appeal to conscience should not allow the law to bring unjust suffering upon another. Conscience, according to Johnson, was nothing more than a conviction felt by ourselves of something to be done or something to be avoided; in questions of simple unperplexed morality, conscience is very often a guide that may be trusted.[161] But before conscience can conclusively determine what morally should be done, he thought that the state of the question should be thoroughly known.[161] "No man's conscience", said Johnson "can tell him the right of another man...it is a conscience very ill informed that violates the rights of one man, for the convenience of another."[161]

Gandhi in Noakhali, 1946: civil resistance or satyagraha Civil disobedience as non-violent protest or civil resistance are also acts of conscience, but are designed by those who undertake them chiefly to change, by appealing to the majority and democratic processes, laws or government policies perceived to be incoherent with fundamental social virtues and principles (such as justice, equality or respect for intrinsic human dignity).[162] Civil disobedience, in a properly functioning democracy, allows a minority who feel strongly that a law infringes their sense of justice (but have no capacity to obtain legislative amendments or a referendum on the issue) to make a potentially apathetic or uninformed majority take account of the intensity of opposing views.[163] A notable example of civil resistance or satyagraha ("satya" in sanskrit means "truth and compassion", "agraha" means "firmness of will") involved Mahatma Gandhi making salt in India when that act was prohibited by a British statute, in order to create moral pressure for law reform.[164] Rosa Parks similarly acted on conscience in 1955 in

Montgomery, Alabama refusing a legal order to give up her seat to make room for a white passenger; her action (and the similar earlier act of 15-year-old Claudette Colvin) leading to the Montgomery Bus Boycott.[165] Rachel Corrie was a US citizen allegedly killed by a bulldozer operated by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) while involved in direct action (based on the nonviolent principles of Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi) to prevent demolition of the home of local Palestinian pharmacist Samir Nasrallah.[166] Al Gore has argued "If you're a young person looking at the future of this planet and looking at what is being done right now, and not done, I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration."[167]

Chiune Sugihara practised conscientious noncompliance in issuing visas to fleeing Jews in Lithuania in 1939 Conscientious non-compliance is a private (non-public) refusal to obey a law perceived as incoherent with foundational social or professional virtues or principles; to be ethically justifiable such an act should be altruistically motivated and the person performing it must be willing to ultimately offer a public justification of his or her actions according to those fundamental virtues and principles.[168] A pertinent contemporary example is a medical professional in a privatised managed care health system who covertly orders additional diagnostic tests or a longer hospital stay (contrary to 'over-servicing' prohibitions in his or her employment contract) because his or her "critical conscience" considers such legal obligations impact adversely on patient safety, contrary to virtues and principles of the Hippocratic Oath or international human rights concerning egalitarian and beneficent treatment; but that public interest disclosure is not a practical option due to the repeal or ineffectiveness of legislation protecting whistleblowers.[169] A notable historical example of conscientious noncompliance in a different professional context was the manipulation of the visa process in 1939 by Japanese Consul-General Chiune Sugihara in Kaunas (the temporary capital of Lithuania between Germany and the Soviet Union) to allow Jews to escape almost certain death.[170] Ho Feng-Shan the Chinese Consul-General in Vienna in 1939, defied orders from the Chinese ambassador in Berlin to issue Jews with visas for Shanghai.[171] John Rabe a German member of the Nazi Party likewise saved thousands of Chinese from massacre by the Japanese military at Nanking.[172] Conscientious noncompliance may be the only practical option for citizens wishing to affirm the existence of an international moral order or 'core' historical rights (such as the right to life, right to a fair trial and freedom of opinion) in states where non-violent protest or civil disobedience are met with prolonged arbitrary detention, torture, forced disappearance, murder or persecution.[173] The controversial Milgram experiment into obedience by Stanley Milgram showed that many people lack the psychological resources to openly resist authority, even when they are directed to act callously and inhumanely against an innocent victim.[174]

[edit] World conscience

Further information: Comparative religion, Universalism, World government, Cosmopolitanism, and Common heritage of humanity

Earthrise from Apollo 8

Eden Project large-scale environmental complex. St Austell, Cornwall UK. World conscience is the universalist idea that with ready global communication, all people on earth will no longer be morally estranged from one another, whether it be culturally, ethnically, or geographically; instead they will conceive ethics from the utopian point of view of the universe, eternity or infinity, rather than have their duties and obligations defined by forces arising solely within the restrictive boundaries of 'blood and territory.'[7] Often this derives from a spiritual or natural law perspective, that for world peace to be achieved, conscience, properly understood, should be generally considered as not necessarily linked (often destructively) to fundamentalist religious ideologies, but as an aspect of universal consciousness, access to which is the common heritage of humanity.[175] Thinking predicated on the development of world conscience is common to members of the Global Ecovillage Network such as the Findhorn Foundation, international conservation organisations like Fauna and Flora International, as well as performers of world music such as Alan Stivell.[176] Edward O Wilson has developed the idea of consilience to encourage coherence of global moral and scientific knowledge supporting the premise that "only unified learning, universally shared, makes accurate foresight and wise choice possible".[177] Thus, world conscience is a concept that overlaps with the Gaia hypothesis in advocating a balance of moral, legal, scientific and economic solutions to modern transnational problems such as global poverty and climate change, through strategies such as environmental ethics, climate ethics, natural conservation, ecology, cosmopolitanism, sustainability and sustainable development, biosequestration and legal protection of the biosphere and biodiversity. [178][179][180][181][182] The microcredit initiatives of Nobel Peace Prize winner Muhammad Yunus have been described as inspiring a "war on poverty that blends social conscience and business savvy".
[183]

Bob Brown: "the universe, through us, is making choices about its future". The Green party politician Bob Brown (who was arrested by the Tasmanian state police for a conscientious act of civil disobedience during the Franklin Dam protest) expresses world conscience in these terms: "the universe, through us, is evolving towards experiencing, understanding and making choices about its future'; one example of policy outcomes from such thinking being a global tax (see Tobin tax) to alleviate global poverty and protect the biosphere, amounting to 1/10th of 1% placed on the worldwide speculative currency market.[184] Such an approach sees world conscience best expressing itself through political reforms promoting democratically based globalisation or planetary democracy (for example internet voting for global governance organisations (see world government) based on the model of "one person, one vote, one value") which gradually will replace contemporary market-based globalisation.[185]

Underwater nuclear test in the Pacific. Worldwide expressions of conscience against such explosions convinced the French Government to cease atmospheric tests at Mururoa. The American cardiologist Bernard Lown and the Russian cardiologist Yevgeniy Chazov were motivated in conscience through studying the catastrophic public health consequences of nuclear war in establishing International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985 and continues to work to "heal an ailing planet".[186] World wide expressions of conscience contributed to the decision of the French government to halt atmospheric nuclear tests at Mururoa in the Pacific in 1974 after 41 such explosions (although below-ground nuclear tests continued there into the 1990s).[187]

Internet Map. Ninian Smart predicts global communication will facilitate world conscience. A challenge to world conscience was provided by an influential 1968 article by Garrett Hardin that critically analyzed the dilemma in which multiple individuals, acting independently after rationally consulting self-interest (and, he claimed, the apparently low 'survival-of-the-fittest' value of conscience-led actions) ultimately destroy a shared limited resource, even though each acknowledges such an outcome is not in anyone's long term interest.[140] Hardin's conclusion that commons areas are practicably achievable only in conditions of low population density (and so their continuance requires state restriction on the freedom to breed), created controversy additionally through his direct deprecation of the role of conscience in achieving individual decisions, policies and laws that facilitate global justice and peace, as well as sustainability and sustainable development of world commons areas, for example including those officially designated such under United Nations treaties (see common heritage of humanity).[188] Areas designated common heritage of humanity under international law include the Moon, Outer Space, deep sea bed, Antarctica, the world cultural and natural heritage (see World Heritage Convention) and the human genome.[189] It will be a significant challenge for world conscience that as world oil, coal, mineral, timber, agricultural and water reserves are depleted, there will be increasing pressure to commercially exploit common heritage of mankind areas.[190]

Darfur refugee camp in Chad: a challenge to the world's conscience. The philosopher Peter Singer has argued that the United Nations Millennium Development Goals represent the emergence of an ethics based not on national boundaries but on the idea of one world. [191] Ninian Smart has similarly predicted that the increase in global travel and communication will gradually draw the world's religions towards a pluralistic and transcendental humanism characterized by an "open spirit" of empathy and compassion.[192]

Sombrero Galaxy: A United Nations treaty declares Outer Space the common heritage of humanity. Garrett Hardin doubted the capacity of conscience to protect such commons areas Noam Chomsky has argued that forces opposing the development of such a world conscience include free market ideologies that valorise corporate greed in nominal electoral democracies where advertising, shopping malls and indebtedness, shape citizens into apathetic consumers in relation to information and access necessary for democratic participation.[193] John Passmore has argued that mystical considerations about the global expansion of all human consciousness, should take into account that if as a species we do become something much superior to what we are now, it will be as a consequence of conscience not only implanting a goal of moral perfectibility, but assisting us to remain periodically anxious, passionate and discontented, for these are necessary components of care and compassion.[194] The Committee on Conscience of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum has targeted genocides such as those in Rwanda, Bosnia, Darfur, the Congo and Chechnya as challenges to the world's conscience.[195] Oscar Arias Sanchez has criticised global arms industry spending as a failiure of conscience by nation states: "When a country decides to invest in arms, rather than in education, housing, the environment, and health services for its people, it is depriving a whole generation of its right to prosperity and happiness. We have produced one firearm for every ten inhabitants of this planet, and yet we have not bothered to end hunger when such a feat is well within our reach. This is not a necessary or inevitable state of affairs. It is a deliberate choice" (see Campaign Against Arms Trade).[196] In 2008, hundreds of Buddhist monks from the Drepung Monastery and Sera Monastery staged peaceful protest marches against the alleged repression of Tibetan culture by Chinese officials [197] these acts prompting US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi, after meeting with the Dalai Lama (see 14th Dalai Lama) at Dharamsala, to state: "The situation in Tibet is a challenge to the conscience of the world."[198] The Right Livelihood Award (sometimes called the Alternative Nobel Prize) is awarded yearly in Sweden to those people, mostly strongly motivated by conscience, who have made exemplary practical contributions to resolving the great challenges facing our planet and its people.[199] In 2009, for example, along with Catherine Hamlin (obstetric fistula and see fistula foundation)), David Suzuki (promoting awareness of climate change) and Alyn Ware (nuclear disarmament), Ren Ngongo shared the Right Livelihood Award "for his courage in confronting the forces that are destroying the Congo Basin's rainforests and building political support for their conservation and sustainable use".[200][201]

[edit] Notable examples of modern acts based on conscience

Further information: List of nonviolence scholars and leaders and List of whistleblowers In a notable contemporary act of conscience, Christian bushwalker Brenda Hean protested against the flooding of Lake Pedder despite threats and that ultimately lead to her death.[202] Another was the campaign by Ken Saro-Wiwa against oil extraction by multinational corporations in Nigeria

that led to his execution.[203] So too was the act by the Tank Man, or the Unknown Rebel photographed holding his shopping bag in the path of tanks during the protests at Beijing's Tiananmen Square on June 5, 1989.[204] The actions of United Nations Secretary General Dag Hammarskjld to try and achieve peace in the Congo despite the (eventuating) threat to his life, were strongly motivated by conscience as is reflected in his diary, Vgmrken (Markings).[205] Another example involved the actions of Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson, Jr to try and prevent the My Lai Massacre in the Vietnam War.[206]

Stephen Bolsin exposed the Bristol paediatric cardiac surgery scandal Conscience played a major role in the actions by anaesthetist Stephen Bolsin to whistleblow (see list of whistleblowers) on incompetent paediatric cardiac surgeons at the Bristol Royal Infirmary. [207] Jeffrey Wigand was motivated by conscience to expose the Big Tobacco scandal, revealing that executives of the companies knew that cigarettes were addictive and approved the addition of carcinogenic ingredients to the cigarettes.[208] David Graham, a Food and Drug Administration employee, was motivated by conscience to whistleblow that the arthritis pain-reliever Vioxx increased the risk of cardiovascular deaths although the manufacturer suppressed this information. [209] Rick Piltz from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, blew the whistle on a White House official who ignored majority scientific opinion to edit a climate change report ("Our Changing Planet") to reflect the Bush administration's view that the problem was unlikely to exist."[210] Muntadhar al-Zaidi, an Iraqi journalist, was imprisoned and allegedly tortured for his act of conscience in throwing his shoes at George W. Bush.[211] Mordechai Vanunu an Israeli former nuclear technician, acted on conscience to reveal details of Israel's nuclear weapons program to the British press in 1986; was kidnapped by Israeli agents, transported to Israel, convicted of treason and spent 18 years in prison, including more than 11 years in solitary confinement.[212]

Peter Buxtun who campaigned in the 1960s against the Tuskegee syphilis experiment. At the awards ceremony for the 200 metres at the 1968 Summer Olympics in Mexico City John Carlos, Tommie Smith and Peter Norman ignored death threats and official warnings to take part in an anti-racism protest that destroyed their respective careers.[213] W. Mark Felt an agent of the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation who retired in 1973 as the Bureau's Associate Director, acted on conscience to provide reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein with information that resulted in the Watergate scandal.[214] Conscience was a major factor in US Public Health Service officer Peter Buxtun revealing the Tuskegee syphilis experiment to the public.[215]

The 2008 attack by the Israeli military on civilian areas of Palestinian Gaza was described as a "stain on the world's conscience".[216] Conscience is a major factor in the refusal of Aung San Suu Kyi to leave Burma despite house arrest and persecution by the military dictatorship in that country.[217] Conscience was a factor in Peter Galbraith's criticism of fraud in the 2009 Afghanistan election despite it costing him his United Nations job.[218] Conscience motivated Bunnatine Greenhouse to expose irregularities in the contracting of the Halliburton company for work in Iraq. [219] Naji al-Ali a popular cartoon artist in the Arab world, loved for his defense of the ordinary people, and for his criticism of repression and despotism by both the Israeli military and Yasser Arafat's PLO, was murdered for refusing to compromise with his conscience.[220] The journalist Anna Politkovskaya provided (prior to her murder) an example of conscience in her opposition to the Second Chechen War and then-Russian President Vladimir Putin.[221] Conscience motivated the Russian human-rights activist Natalia Estemirova, who was abducted and murdered in Grozny, Chechnya in 2009.[222] The Death of Neda Agha-Soltan arose from conscience-driven protests against the 2009 Iranian presidential election.[223] Female Muslim lawyer Shirin Ebadi (winner of the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize) has been described as the 'conscience of the Islamic Republic' for her work in protecting the human rights of women and children in Iran.[224] The human rights lawyer Gao Zhisheng, often referred to as the 'conscience of China' and who had previously been arrested and allegedly tortured by the Chinese regime for defending members of the Falun Gong, was abducted by Chinese security agents on February 4, 2009 and has not been seen since.[225] 2010 Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo in his final statement before being sentenced by a closed Chinese court to over a decade in jail as a political prisoner of conscience stated: "For hatred is corrosive of a persons wisdom and conscience; the mentality of enmity can poison a nations spirit."[226]

[edit] Conscience in literature, art, film and music

Further information: Philosophy and literature The ancient epic of the Indian subcontinent, the Mahabharata of Vyasa, contains two pivotal moments of conscience. The first occurs when the warrior Arjuna being overcome with compassion against killing his opposing relatives in war, receives counsel (see Bhagavad-Gita) from Krishna about his spiritual duty ("work as though you are performing a sacrifice for the general good").[227] The second, at the end of the saga, is when king Yudhishthira having alone survived the moral tests of life, is offered eternal bliss, only to refuse it because a faithful dog is prevented from coming with him by purported divine rules and laws.[228] The French author Montaigne (15331592) in one of the most celebrated of his essays ("On experience") expressed the benefits of living with a clear conscience: "Our duty is to compose our character, not to compose books, to win not battles and provinces, but order and tranquillity in our conduct. Our great and glorious masterpiece is to live properly".[229] In his famous Japanese travel journal Oku no Hosomichi (Narrow Road to the Deep North) composed of mixed haiku poetry and prose, Matsuo Basho (164494) in attempting to describe the eternal in this perishable world is often moved in conscience; for example by a thicket of summer grass being all that remains of the dreams and ambitions of ancient warriors.[230] Chaucer's "Franklin's Tale" in The Canterbury Tales recounts how a young suitor releases a wife from a rash promise because of the respect in his conscience for the freedom to be truthful, gentle and generous.[231]

Eugne Delacroix, Hamlet and Horatio in the Graveyard (1839, oil on canvas) The critic A. C. Bradley discusses the central problem of Shakespeare's tragic character Hamlet as one where conscience in the form of moral scruples deters the young Prince with his "great anxiety to do right" from obeying his father's hell-bound ghost and murdering the usurping King ("is't not perfect conscience to quit him with this arm?" (v.ii.67)).[232] Bradley develops a theory about Hamlet's moral agony relating to a conflict between "traditional" and "critical" conscience: "The conventional moral ideas of his time, which he shared with the Ghost, told him plainly that he ought to avenge his father; but a deeper conscience in him, which was in advance of his time, contended with these explicit conventional ideas. It is because this deeper conscience remains below the surface that he fails to recognise it, and fancies he is hindered by cowardice or sloth or passion or what not; but it emerges into light in that speech to Horatio. And it is just because he has this nobler moral nature in him that we admire and love him".[233] The opening words of Shakespeare's Sonnet 94 ("They that have pow'r to hurt, and will do none") have been admired as a description of conscience.[234] So has John Donne's commencement of his poem Good Friday, 1613, Riding Westward: "Let man's Soule be a sphere, and then, in this,/Th' intelligence that moves, devotion is."[235] Anton Pavlovich Chekhov. Tretyakov Gallery. Anton Chekhov in his plays The Seagull, Uncle Vanya and Three Sisters describes the tortured emotional states of doctors who at some point in their careers have turned their back on conscience.[236] In his short stories, Chekhov also explored how people misunderstood the voice of a tortured conscience. A promiscuous student, for example, in The Fit describes it as a "dull pain, indefinite, vague; it was like anguish and the most acute fear and despair...in his breast, under the heart" and the young doctor examining the misunderstood agony of compassion experienced by the factory owner's daughter in From a Case Book calls it an "unknown, mysterious power...in fact close at hand and watching him."[237] Characteristically, Chekhov's own conscience drove him on the long journey to Sakhalin to record and alleviate the harsh conditions of the prisoners at that remote outpost. As Irina Ratushinskaya writes in the introduction to that work: "Abandoning everything, he travelled to the distant island of Sakhalin, the most feared place of exile and forced labour in Russia at that time. One cannot help but wonder why? Simply, because the lot of the people there was a bitter one, because nobody really knew about the lives and deaths of the exiles, because he felt that they stood in greater need of help that anyone else. A strange reason, maybe, but not for a writer who was the epitome of all the best traditions of a Russian man of letters. Russian literature has always focused on questions of conscience and was, therefore, a powerful force in the moulding of public opinion."[238]

Fyodor Dostoevsky, author of Crime and Punishment E. H. Carr writes of Dostoevsky's character the young student Raskolnikov in the novel Crime and Punishment who decides to murder a 'vile and loathsome' old woman money lender on the principle of transcending conventional morals: "the sequel reveals to us not the pangs of a stricken conscience (which a less subtle writer would have given us) but the tragic and fruitless struggle of a powerful intellect to maintain a conviction which is incompatible with the essential nature of man."[239]

Hermann Hesse, author of Siddhartha. Hermann Hesse wrote his Siddhartha to describe how a young man in the time of the Buddha follows his conscience on a journey to discover a transcendent inner space where all things could be unified and simply understood, ending up discovering that personal truth through selfless service as a ferryman.[240] J. R. R. Tolkien in his epic The Lord of the Rings describes how only the hobbit Frodo is pure enough in conscience to carry the ring of power through war-torn Middleearth to destruction in the Cracks of Doom, Frodo determining at the end to journey without weapons, and being saved from failure by his earlier decision to spare the life of the creature Gollum.[241] The Robert Bolt play A Man For All Seasons focuses on the conscience of Catholic lawyer Thomas More in his struggle with King Henry VIII ("the loyal subject is more bounden to be loyal to his conscience than to any other thing").[242] George Orwell wrote his novel Nineteen EightyFour on the isolated island of Jura, Scotland to describe how a man (Winston Smith) attempts to develop critical conscience in a totalitarian state which watches every action of the people and manipulates their thinking with a mixture of propaganda, endless war and thought control through language control (double think and newsspeak) to the point where prisoners look up to and even love their torturers.[243] In the Ministry of Love, Winston's torturer (O'Brien) states: "You are imagining that there is something called human nature which will be outraged by what we do and will turn against us. But we create human nature. Men are infinitely malleable".[244]

A tapestry copy of Picasso's Guernica depicting a massacre of innocent women and children during the Spanish civil war is displayed on the wall of the United Nations building in New York City, at the entrance to the Security Council room, demonstrably as a spur to the conscience of representatives from the nation states.[245] Albert Tucker painted Man's Head to capture the moral disintegration, and lack of conscience, of a man convicted of kicking a dog to death.[246]

Vincent van Gogh, 1890. Krller-Mller Museum. On the Threshold of Eternity. The impressionist painter Vincent van Gogh wrote in a letter to his brother Theo in 1878 that "one must never let the fire in one's soul die, for the time will inevitably come when it will be needed. And he who chooses poverty for himself and loves it possesses a great treasure and will hear the voice of his conscience address him every more clearly. He who hears that voice, which is God's greatest gift, in his innermost being and follows it, finds in it a friend at last, and he is never alone!...That is what all great men have acknowledged in their works, all those who have thought a little more deeply and searched and worked and loved a little more than the rest, who have plumbed the depths of the sea of life."[247] The 1957 Ingmar Bergman film Seventh Seal portrays the journey of a medieval knight (Max von Sydow) returning disillusioned from the crusades ("what is going to happen to those of us who want to believe, but aren't able to?") across a plague-ridden landscape, undertaking a game of chess with the personification of Death until he can perform one meaningful altruistic act of conscience (overturning the chess board to distract Death long enough for a family of jugglers to escape in their wagon).[248] The 1942 Casablanca centers on the development of conscience in the cynical American Rick Blaine (Humphrey Bogart) in the face of oppression by the Nazis and the example of the resistance leader Victor Laszlo.[249] The David Lean and Robert Bolt screenplay for Doctor Zhivago (an adaptation of Boris Pasternak's novel) focuses strongly on the conscience of a doctor-poet in the midst of the Russian Revolution (in the end "the walls of his heart were like paper").[250] The 1982 Ridley Scott film Blade Runner focuses on the struggles of conscience between and

within a bounty hunter (Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford)) and a renegade replicant android (Roy Batty (Rutger Hauer)) in a future society which refuses to accept that forms of artificial intelligence can have aspects of being such as conscience.[251]

J.S. Bach. Original page from Credo (Symbolum Nicenum) section of Mass in B Minor J.S. Bach wrote his last great choral composition the Mass in B minor (BWV 232) to express the alternating emotions of loneliness, despair, joy and rapture that arise as conscience reflects on a departed human life.[252] Here JS Bach's use of counterpoint and contrapuntal settings, his dynamic discourse of melodically and rhythmically distinct voices seeking forgiveness of sins ("Qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis") evokes a spiraling moral conversation of all humanity expressing his belief that "with devotional music, God is always present in his grace".[253] Ludwig van Beethoven's meditations on illness, conscience and mortality in the Late String Quartets led to his dedicating the third movement of String Quartet in A Minor (1825) Op. 132 (see String Quartet No. 15) as a "Hymn of Thanksgiving to God of a convalescent".[254][255] The John Lennon's work "Imagine" owes much of its popular appeal to its evocation of conscience against the atrocities created by war, religious fundamentalism and politics.[256] The George Harrison-written Beatles track "The Inner Light" sets to Indian raga music a verse from the Tao Te Ching that "without going out of your door you can know the ways of heaven'.[257] In the 1986 movie The Mission the guilty conscience and penance of the slave trader Mendoza is made more poignant by the haunting oboe music of Ennio Morricone ("On Earth as it is in Heaven")[258] The American Society of Journalists and Authors (ASJA) presents the Conscience-in-Media Award to journalists whom the society deems worthy of recognition for demonstrating "singular commitment to the highest principles of journalism at notable personal cost or sacrifice".[259] The Ambassador of Conscience Award, Amnesty International's most prestigious human rights award, takes its inspiration from a poem written by Irish Nobel prize-winning poet Seamus Heaney called "The Republic of Conscience."[8] Winners of the award have included: musician Peter Gabriel (2008), Nelson Mandela (2006), the Irish rock band U2 (2005), Mary Robinson and Hilda Morales Trujillo (a Guatemalan women's rights activist) (2004) and the author and public intellectual Vclav Havel (2003).[8] In ethics, value is a property of objects, including physical objects as well as abstract objects (e.g. actions), representing their degree of importance.

Ethic value denotes something's degree of importance, with the aim of determining what action or life is best to do or live, or at least attempt to describe the value of different actions. It may be described as treating actions themselves as abstract objects, putting value to them. It deals with right conduct and good life, in the sense that a highly, or at least relatively highly, valuable action may be regarded as ethically "good" (adjective sense), and an action of low, or at least relatively low, value may be regarded as "bad". What makes an action valuable may in turn depend on the ethic values of the objects it increases, decreases or alters. An object with "ethic value" may be termed an "ethic or philosophic good" (noun sense).

Contents
[hide]

1 Study o 1.1 Similar concepts 2 Absolute and relative 3 Intrinsic and extrinsic o 3.1 Whole value 4 Intensity o 4.1 Homology in physics 5 Duration o 5.1 Average and instantaneous value 6 Total value o 6.1 Total whole value 7 Economic and philosophic value 8 Equality 9 Value system 10 Positive and negative value o 10.1 Human negative value 11 See also 12 References

[edit] Study

Ethical value may be regarded as a study under ethics, which, in turn, may be grouped as philosophy. Similar to that ethics may be regarded as a subfield of philosophy, ethical value may be regarded as a subgroup of the more broad (and vague) philosophic value. Ethical value denotes something's degree importance, with the aim of determining what action or life is best to do, or at least attempt to describe the value of different actions. It may be described as treating actions themselves as abstract objects, putting value to them. It deals with right conduct and good life, in the sense that a highly, or at least relatively

highly, valuable action or may be regarded as good, and an action of low, or at least relatively low, value may be regarded as bad. The study of ethical value is also included in value theory.

[edit] Similar concepts

Ethical value is sometimes used synonymously with goodness. However, goodness has many other meanings as well, and may be regarded as more ambiguous.

[edit] Absolute and relative

Further information: Value (personal and cultural) There is a distinction between relative (or personal or cultural value) and absolute (or noumenal) value (not to be confused with mathematical absolute value). Relative value is subjective, depending on individual and cultural views, and is therefore synonymous with personal and cultural value. Absolute value, on the other hand, is philosophically absolute and independent of individual and cultural views, as well as independent on whether it discovered or not what object has it. Relative value may be regarded as an experience by subjects of the absolute value. Relative value varies with individual and culture while absolute value, on the other hand, is the same, regardless of the experience of individuals. Relative value may be explained as an assumption upon which implementation can be extrapolated. Absolute value could possibly be implemented if it was known, but cannot be assumed, but is what it is.

[edit] Intrinsic and extrinsic

Philosophic value may be split into instrumental value and intrinsic values. An instrumental value is worth having as a means towards getting something else that is good (e.g., a radio is instrumentally good in order to hear music). An intrinsically valuable thing is worth for itself, not as a means to something else. It is giving value intrinsic and extrinsic properties. An ethic good with instrumental value may be termed an ethic mean, and an ethic good with intrinsic value may be termed an end-in-itself. An object may be both a mean and end-in-itself.

[edit] Whole value

Intrinsic and instrumental goods are not mutually exclusive categories.[1] Some objects are both good in themselves, and also good for getting other objects that are good. "Understanding science" may be such a good, being both worthwhile in and of itself, and as a means of achieving other goods. In these cases, the sum of instrumental (specifically the all instrumental value) and instrinsic value of an object may be regarded as the whole value of the object.

[edit] Intensity
The intensity of philosophic value is the degree it is generated or carried out, and may be regarded as the prevalence of the good, the object having the value. [1] It should not be confused with the amount of value per object, although the latter may vary too, e.g. because of instrumental value conditionality. For instance, for a Waffleist, accepting waffle eating as of end-in-itself, the intensity may be the speed that waffles are eaten, and is zero when no waffles are eaten, e.g. if no waffles are present. Still, each waffle that had been present would still have value, no matter if it was being eaten or not, independent on intensity. Instrumental value conditionality in this case could be exampled by every waffle not present, making them less valued by being far away rather than easily accessible. In many life stances it is the product of value and intensity that is ultimately desirable, i.e. not only to generate value, but to generate it in large degree. Maximizing lifestances have the highest possible intensity as an imperative.

[edit] Homology in physics

When comparing to the homologous measure in physics, then intensity in physics may not be the best example, but may better be described as its area. In this sense, power in physics may be compared to the amount of value per object, and physical intensity the product of value per object and ethic intensity. If there is no physical area, then no energy is generated, regardless of physical power. In the same way, if there is no ethic intensity, then no total value is generated, regardless of value per object.

[edit] Duration
Philosophic or ethic value duration is the time that an object exists, or more specifically, has any intensity. It is contrasted with chain of events duration, which is the time it takes for a chain of events to reach its terminal event, in this case the object with intrinsic value. The chain of events duration may be significantly longer than the value duration, especially for objects with long term instrumental value. In the intervening time, the value of the object is converted into the value of the intervening objects in the chain of events.

[edit] Average and instantaneous value

With time in mind, there is a distinction between average ethic or philosophic value and instantaneous ethic or philosophic value.

The average ethic or philosophic value is the average of the ethic or philosophic value of an object during a certain amount of time. If not else specified it is assumed to be the value duration of the object in mind. It can, however, also be the chain of events duration or other specified amount of time. The instantaneous ethic or philosophic value is the ethic or philosophic value of an object at a certain point of time. If may be a present, past or future point of time.

[edit] Total value

The total ethic or philosophic value of an object is the product of its average value, average intensity and value duration. It may be either absolute or relative or both. Any decrease in the whole value, intensity or duration of an object decreases its total value and vice versa. For instance, for a Waffleist, regarding waffles as of ends-in-themselves, it still doesn't generate any total value if there are no waffles, no intensity, no matter how much average value a waffle has.

[edit] Total whole value

The total value of the whole value of an object is its total whole value. Alternatively described, it is the sum of the total intrinsic value and total instrumental value. It may be either relative or absolute, or both.

[edit] Economic and philosophic value

Further information: Value (economics) Philosophical value is distinguished from economic value, since it is independent on some other desired condition or commodity. The economic value of an object may rise when the exchangeable desired condition or commodity, e.g. money, become high in supply, and vice versa when supply of money becomes low. Nevertheless, economic value may be regarded as a result of philosophical value. In the subjective theory of value, the personal philosophic value a person puts in possessing something is reflected in what economic value this person puts on it. The limit where a person considers to purchase something may be regarded as the point where the personal philosophic value of possessing something exceeds the personal philosophic value of what is given up in exchange for it, e.g. money. In this light, everything can be said to have a "personal economic value" in contrast to its "societal economic value."

[edit] Equality

Philosophic or ethic value equality is the concept of two objects having the same philosophic value. It can be of different types, depending of the value:

Philosophic or ethic intrinsic value equality, where the objects have the same intrinsic value Philosophic or ethic instrumental value equality, where the objects have the same instrumental value Philosophic or ethic whole value equality, where the objects have the same whole value Philosophic or ethic total value equality, where the objects have the same total value

[edit] Value system

Main article: Value system A value system is a set of consistent ethic values and measures used for the purpose of ethical or ideological integrity. A well defined value system is a moral code.

[edit] Positive and negative value

There may be a distinction between positive and negative philosophic or ethic value. While positive ethic value generally correlates with something that is pursued or maximized, negative ethic value correlates with something that is avoided or minimized. Negative value may be both intrinsic negative value and/or instrumental negative value.

[edit] Human negative value

Some regard humans as having negative value. For instance, the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement holds that the world would be better without humankind and the values it brings. On a smaller scale, it may be thought of as a reason for suicide. Intrinsic value is an ethical and philosophic property. It is the ethical or philosophic value that an object has "in itself" or "for its own sake", as an intrinsic property. An object with intrinsic value may be regarded as an end or end-in-itself. It is contrasted with instrumental value (or extrinsic value), the value of which depends on how much it generates intrinsic value. For an eudaemonist, happiness has intrinsic value, while having a family may not have intrinsic value, yet be instrumental, since it generates happiness. Intrinsic value is a term employed in axiology, the study of quality or value.

Contents
[hide]

1 Terminology

1.1 Other names 1.2 Similar concepts 1.3 End 1.3.1 Similar concepts 2 Relation to purpose 3 Life stances and intrinsic value 4 Quantity o 4.1 Equality o 4.2 Intrinsic multism o 4.3 Total intrinsic value o 4.4 Unspecified aliquidism 5 Concrete and abstract o 5.1 Concrete o 5.2 Continuum 6 Absolute and relative o 6.1 Absolute intrinsic value denial 6.1.1 Pragmatism 7 Positive and negative intrinsic value 8 See also 9 References
o o o

10 External links

[edit] Terminology
[edit] Other names
Other names for intrinsic value are terminal value, essential value, principle value or ultimate importance. See also Robert S. Hartman's use of the term in the article Science of Value.

[edit] Similar concepts

Intrinsic value is mainly used in ethics, but the concept is also used in philosophy, with terms that essentially may refer to the same concept.

As "ultimate importance" it is what is related to by a sentient being in order to constitute a life stance. It is synonymous with the meaning of life, as this may be expressed as what is meaningful or valuable[1] in life. However, meaning of life is more vague, with other uses as well. Summum bonum is basically its equivalent in medieval philosophy. The relative intrinsic value is roughly synonymous with the ethic ideal.

Inherent value may be regarded a first grade instrumental value when a personal experience is the intrinsic value.

[edit] End
In philosophy and ethics, an end or end-in-itself is an object, either a concrete object or an abstract object (e.g. an action), that has intrinsic value. It is contrasted to a means, which is an object that has instrumental value. Nevertheless, some objects may be ends and means at the same time. "Something is of intrinsic value if it is good or desirable in itself; the contrast is with instrumental value, that is value as a means to some other end or purpose."[2] [edit] Similar concepts End is roughly similar, and often used as a synonym, for the following concepts:

Purpose or aim: in its most general sense the anticipated result which guides action. Goal or objective consists of a projected state of affairs which a person or a system plans or intends to achieve or bring about

[edit] Relation to purpose

Intrinsic value is strongly linked to the purpose in life, since the purpose is generally to increase the intrinsic value.

[edit] Life stances and intrinsic value

This is a table which attempts to summarize the main intrinsic value of different life stances and other views, although there may be great diversity within them: Further information: Life stance#Values and purposes Life stance Main intrinsic value and other views Nihilism None Humanism human flourishing Hedonism pleasure Eudaemonism happiness utility (although this is often synonymous with pleasure Utilitarianism or happiness) Rational Deontologism virtue or duty Rational Eudmonism, or tempered both virtue and happiness combined Deontologism

Emptiness Situational Ethics

nothing possesses essential, enduring identity love

[edit] Quantity
There may be zero,[3] one, or several[3] things in the world with intrinsic value.

Intrinsic nihilism, or simply nihilism (from Latin nothing) holds that there are zero. Intrinsic aliquidism, or simply aliquidism[4] (from Latin something) holds that there is one or more. This may be of several quantities, ranging from one single to all possible. o Intrinsic monism (from Greek one) holds that there is one thing with intrinsic value. This view may hold only lifestances that accept this object as intrinsically valuable. o Intrinsic multism (from Latin many) holds that there are many things with intrinsic value. In other words, this view may hold the instrinsic values of several life stances as intrinsically valuable. o Intrinsic panism (from Greek everything) is one step further. It is to everything in the world as having intrinsic value.

[edit] Equality
Further information: Ethic value equality Among followers of aliquidistic lifestances regarding more than one thing as having intrinsic value, these may be regarded as equally intrinsically valuable or unequally so. However, in practice, they may in any case be unequally valued because of their instrumental values resulting in unequal whole values.

[edit] Intrinsic multism

This view may hold the instrinsic values of several life stances as intrinsically valuable. Note the difference between this and regarding several intrinsic values as more or less instrumentally valuable, since intrinsic monistic views also may hold other intrinsic values than their own chosen one as valuable, but then only to the degree other intrinsic values contribute indirectly to their own chosen intrinsic value. The most simple form of intrinsic multism is intrinsic bi-ism (from Latin two), which holds two objects as having intrinsic value. Humanism is an example of a life stance that accepts that several things have intrinsic value.[3] Multism may not necessarily include the feature of intrinsic values to have a negative side, e.g. the feature of utilitarism to accept both pain as well as pleasure to be of intrinsic value, since they may be viewed as different sides of the same coin.

[edit] Total intrinsic value

The total intrinsic value of an object is the product of its average intrinsic value, average value intensity and value duration. It may be either an absolute or relative value. The total intrinsic value and total instrumental value together make the total whole value of an object.

[edit] Unspecified aliquidism

Main article: Ietsism Ietsism (Dutch ietsisme - "Somethingism") is a Dutch language term for a range of beliefs held by people who, on the one hand, inwardly suspect - or indeed believe - that there is More between Heaven and Earth than we know about, but on the other hand do not accept or subscribe to the established belief system, dogma or view of the nature of God offered by any particular religion. In this sense, it may roughly be regarded as aliquidism, without further specification. For instance, most lifestances include the acceptance of "there is something, some meaning of life, something that is an end-in-itself or something more to existence, and it is...", assuming various objects or "truths", while ietsism, on the other hand simply accepts "there is something", without further assumption to it.

[edit] Concrete and abstract

The object with instrinsic value, the end, may be both a concrete object or an abstract object.

[edit] Concrete
In the case where concrete objects are accepted as ends, they may be either single particulars or generalized to all particulars of one or more universals. However, the majority of life stances choose all particulars of universals as ends. For instance, Humanism doesn't assume individual humans as ends but rather all humans of humanity.

[edit] Continuum
When generalizing multiple particulars of a single universal it may not be certain whether the end is actually the individual particulars or the rather abstract universal. In such cases, a life stance may rather be a continuum between having a concrete and abstract end. This may render life stances of being both intrinsic multistic and intrinsic monistic at the same time. Such a quantity contradiction, however, may be of only minor practic significance, since splitting an end into many ends decreases the whole value but increases the value intensity.

[edit] Absolute and relative

There may be a distinction between absolute and relative ethic value regarding intrinsic value. Relative intrinsic value is subjective, depending on individual and cultural views and/or the individual choice of life stance. Absolute intrinsic value, on the other hand, is philosophically absolute and independent of individual and cultural views, as well as independent on whether it discovered or not what object has it.

[edit] Absolute intrinsic value denial

There is an ongoing discussion whether absolute intrinsic value exists at all, for instance in pragmatism. [edit] Pragmatism Further information: Pragmatism In pragmatism, John Deweys[5] empirical approach did not accept intrinsic value as an inherent or enduring property of things. He saw it as an illusory product of our continuous ethic valuing activity as purposive beings. When held across only some contexts, Dewey held that goods are only intrinsic relative to a situation. In other words, he only believed in relative intrinsic value, but not any absolute intrinsic value. He held that across all contexts, goodness is best understood as instrumental value, with no contrasting intrinsic goodness. In other words, Dewey claimed that anything can only be of intrinsic value if it is a contributory good.

[edit] Positive and negative intrinsic value

There may be both positive and negative value regarding intrinsic value. An object with positive intrinsic value may be termed a positive end or a posend. On the other hand, an object with negative intrinsic value may be termed a negative end or a negend A posend is something that for itself is purposed to be pursued or maximized, while a negend, on the other hand, is something that intrinsically is best to avoid or minimize. For instance, in utilitarianism, pleasure may be regarded as the posend and dolor the negend. Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is a sense of behavioral conduct that differentiates intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong). A moral code is a system of morality (for example, according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) and a moral is any one practice or teaching within a moral code. Immorality is the active opposition to morality, while amorality is variously defined as an unawareness of, indifference toward, or disbelief in any set of moral standards or principles.[1][2][3][4] Morality has two principal meanings:

In its "descriptive" sense, morality refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores that distinguish between right and wrong in the human society. Describing morality in this way is not making a claim about what is objectively right or wrong, but only referring to what is considered right or wrong by an individual or some group of people (such as a religion). This sense of the term is addressed by descriptive ethics. In its "normative" sense, morality refers directly to what is right and wrong, regardless of what specific individuals think. It could be defined as the conduct of the ideal "moral" person in a certain situation. This usage of the term is characterized by "definitive" statements such as "That act is immoral" rather than descriptive ones such as "Many believe that act is immoral." It is often challenged by moral nihilism, which rejects the existence of any moral truths,[5] and supported by moral realism, which supports the existence of moral truths. The normative usage of the term "morality" is addressed by normative ethics.

Contents
[hide]

1 Philosophical perspectives o 1.1 Realism and anti-realism 2 Anthropological perspectives o 2.1 Tribal and territorial moralities o 2.2 In-group and out-group o 2.3 Comparing cultures 3 Evolutionary perspectives 4 Neuroscientific perspectives o 4.1 Mirror-neurons o 4.2 Neuroimaging and stimulation 5 Psychological perspectives 6 Morality and politics 7 Morality and religion 8 Moral codes 9 See also 10 Bibliography 11 References 12 External links

[edit] Philosophical perspectives

Main article: Ethics Ethics (also known as moral philosophy) is the branch of philosophy that addresses questions about morality.

The word 'ethics' is "commonly used interchangeably with 'morality' to mean the subject matter of this study; and sometimes it is used more narrowly to mean the moral principles of a particular tradition, group, or individual."[6] Likewise, certain types of ethical theories, especially deontological ethics, sometimes distinguish between 'ethics' and 'morals': "Although the morality of people and their ethics amounts to the same thing, there is a usage that restricts morality to systems such as that of Kant, based on notions such as duty, obligation, and principles of conduct, reserving ethics for the more Aristotelian approach to practical reasoning, based on the notion of a virtue, and generally avoiding the separation 'moral' considerations from other practical considerations."[7]

[edit] Realism and anti-realism

Philosophical theories on the nature and origins of morality (that is, theories of meta-ethics) are broadly divided into two classes:

Moral realism is the class of such theories which hold that there are true moral statements that report objective moral facts. For example, while they might concede that forces of social conformity significantly shape individuals' "moral" decisions, they deny that those cultural norms and customs define morally right behavior. This may be the philosophical view propounded by ethical naturalists, however not all moral realists accept that position (e.g. ethical non-naturalists).[8] Moral anti-realism, on the other hand, holds that moral statements either fail or do not even attempt to report objective moral facts. Instead, they hold that morality is derived either from an unsupported belief that there are objective moral facts (error theory, a form of moral nihilism), the speakers' sentiments (emotivism), or any one of the norms prevalent in society (ethical subjectivism, in particular moral relativism). The moral relativist holds that there is no correct definition of right behavior, and that morality can only be judged with respect to the standards of particular belief systems and socio-historical contexts. This position often cites empirical evidence from anthropology of sharply contrasting views of "good" as supporting its claims.[9]

Theories which claim that morality is derived from reasoning about implied imperatives (universal prescriptivism), the edicts of a god (divine command theory), or the hypothetical decrees of a perfectly rational being (ideal observer theory), are considered anti-realist in the robust sense used here, but are considered realist in the sense synonymous with moral universalism.

[edit] Anthropological perspectives

[edit] Tribal and territorial moralities
Celia Green has made a distinction between tribal and territorial morality.[10] She characterizes the latter as predominantly negative and proscriptive: it defines a persons territory, including his or her property and dependents, which is not to be damaged or interfered with. Apart from these proscriptions, territorial morality is permissive, allowing the individual whatever behaviour does not interfere with the territory of another. By contrast, tribal morality is prescriptive, imposing the norms of the collective on the individual. These norms will be arbitrary, culturally dependent and

flexible, whereas territorial morality aims at rules which are universal and absolute, such as Kants categorical imperative. Green relates the development of territorial morality to the rise of the concept of private property, and the ascendancy of contract over status.

[edit] In-group and out-group

Some observers hold that individuals apply distinct sets of moral rules to people depending on their membership of an "in-group" (the individual and those they believe to be of the same culture or race) or an "out-group" (people not entitled to be treated according to the same rules). Some biologists, anthropologists and evolutionary psychologists believe this in-group/out-group discrimination has evolved because it enhances group survival. Gary R. Johnson and V.S. Falger have argued that nationalism and patriotism are forms of this in-group/out-group boundary. Jonathan Haidt has noted[11] that experimental observation indicates an in-group criterion provides one moral foundation substantially used by conservatives, but far less so by liberals.

[edit] Comparing cultures

Peterson and Seligman [12] approach the anthropological view looking across cultures, geo-cultural areas and across millennia. They conclude that certain virtues have prevailed in all cultures they examined. The major virtues they identified include wisdom / knowledge; courage; humanity; justice; temperance; and transcendence. Each of these includes several divisions. For instance humanity includes love, kindness, and social intelligence. Fons Trompenaars, author of Did the Pedestrian Die?, tested members of different cultures with various moral dilemmas. One of these was whether the driver of a car would have his friend, a passenger riding in the car, lie in order to protect the driver from the consequences of driving too fast and hitting a pedestrian. Trompenaars found that different cultures had quite different expectations (from none to almost certain).

[edit] Evolutionary perspectives

See also: Evolution of morality, Altruism, Evolutionary ethics The development of modern morality is a process closely tied to the Sociocultural evolution of different peoples of humanity. Some evolutionary biologists, particularly sociobiologists, believe that morality is a product of evolutionary forces acting at an individual level and also at the group level through group selection (though to what degree this actually occurs is a controversial topic in evolutionary theory). Some sociobiologists contend that the set of behaviors that constitute morality evolved largely because they provided possible survival and/or reproductive benefits (i.e. increased evolutionary success). Humans consequently evolved "pro-social" emotions, such as feelings of empathy or guilt, in response to these moral behaviors. In this respect, morality is not absolute, but relative and constitutes any set of behaviors that encourage human cooperation based on their ideology to get ideologic unity. Biologists contend that all social animals, from ants to elephants, have modified their behaviors, by restraining selfishness in order to make group living worthwhile. Human morality, though sophisticated and

complex relative to other animals, is essentially a natural phenomenon that evolved to restrict excessive individualism and foster human cooperation.[13] On this view, moral codes are ultimately founded on emotional instincts and intuitions that were selected for in the past because they aided survival and reproduction (inclusive fitness). Examples: the maternal bond is selected for because it improves the survival of offspring; the Westermarck effect, where close proximity during early years reduces mutual sexual attraction, underpins taboos against incest because it decreases the likelihood of genetically risky behaviour such as inbreeding. The phenomenon of 'reciprocity' in nature is seen by evolutionary biologists as one way to begin to understand human morality. Its function is typically to ensure a reliable supply of essential resources, especially for animals living in a habitat where food quantity or quality fluctuates unpredictably. For example, some vampire bats fail to feed on prey some nights while others manage to consume a surplus. Bats that did eat will then regurgitate part of their blood meal to save a conspecific from starvation. Since these animals live in close-knit groups over many years, an individual can count on other group members to return the favor on nights when it goes hungry (Wilkinson, 1984) Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce (2009) have argued that morality is a suite of behavioral capacities likely shared by all mammals living in complex social groups (e.g., wolves, coyotes, elephants, dolphins, rats, chimpanzees). They define morality as "a suite of interrelated other-regarding behaviors that cultivate and regulate complex interactions within social groups." This suite of behaviors includes empathy, reciprocity, altruism, cooperation, and a sense of fairness.[14] In related work, it has been convincingly demonstrated that chimpanzees show empathy for each other in a wide variety of contexts.[15] They also possess the ability to engage in deception, and a level of social 'politics'[16] prototypical of our own tendencies for gossip and reputation management. Christopher Boehm (1982) has hypothesized that the incremental development of moral complexity throughout hominid evolution was due to the increasing need to avoid disputes and injuries in moving to open savanna and developing stone weapons. Other theories are that increasing complexity was simply a correlate of increasing group size and brain size, and in particular the development of theory of mind abilities. Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion suggested that our morality is a result of our biological evolutionary history and that the Moral Zeitgeist helps describe how morality evolves from biological and cultural origins and evolves with time within a culture.

[edit] Neuroscientific perspectives

[edit] Mirror-neurons
Main article: mirror neurons This article is outdated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. Please see the talk page for more information. (November 2010) Mirror neurons are neurons in the brain that fire when another person is observed doing a certain action. The neurons fire in imitation of the action being observed, causing the same muscles to act minutely in the observer as are acting grossly in the person actually performing the action.

Research on mirror neurons, since their discovery in 1996,[17] suggests that they may have a role to play not only in action understanding, but also in emotion sharing empathy. Cognitive neuroscientist Jean Decety thinks that the ability to recognize and vicariously experience what another individual is undergoing was a key step forward in the evolution of social behavior, and ultimately, morality.[18] The inability to feel empathy is one of the defining characteristics of psychopathy, and this would appear to lend support to Decety's view.[19][20]

[edit] Neuroimaging and stimulation

The explicit making of moral right and wrong judgments coincides with activation in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex while intuitive reactions to situations containing implicit moral issues activates the temporoparietal junction area.[21] Stimulation of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex by transcranial magnetic stimulation has been shown to change moral judgments of human subjects.[22]

[edit] Psychological perspectives

See also: Kohlberg's stages of moral development and Jean Piaget#Education and development of morality In modern moral psychology, morality is considered to change through personal development. A number of psychologists have produced theories on the development of morals, usually going through stages of different morals. Lawrence Kohlberg, Jean Piaget, and Elliot Turiel have cognitive-developmental approaches to moral development; to these theorists morality forms in a series of constructive stages or domains. Social psychologists such as Martin Hoffman and Jonathan Haidt emphasize social and emotional development based on biology, such as empathy. Moral identity theorists, such as William Damon and Mordechai Nisan, see moral commitment as arising from the development of a self-identity that is defined by moral purposes: this moral selfidentity leads to a sense of responsibility to pursue such purposes. Of historical interest in psychology are the theories of psychoanalysts such as Sigmund Freud, who believe that moral development is the product of aspects of the super-ego as guilt-shame avoidance.

[edit] Morality and politics

If morality is the answer to the question 'how ought we to live' at the individual level, politics can be seen as addressing the same question at the social level. It is therefore unsurprising that evidence has been found of a relationship between attitudes in morality and politics. Jonathan Haidt and Jesse Graham have studied the differences between liberals and conservatives, in this regard.[23][24][25] Haidt found that Americans who identified as liberals tended to value care and fairness higher than loyalty, respect and purity. Self-identified conservative Americans valued care and fairness less and the remaining three values more. Both groups gave care the highest over-all weighting, but conservatives valued fairness the lowest, whereas liberals valued purity the lowest. Haidt also hypothesizes that the origin of this division in the United States can be traced to geohistorical factors, with conservatism strongest in closely knit, ethnically homogenous

communities, in contrast to port-cities, where the cultural mix is greater, thus requiring more liberalism. Group morality develops from shared concepts and beliefs and is often codified to regulate behavior within a culture or community. Various defined actions come to be called moral or immoral. Individuals who choose moral action are popularly held to possess "moral fiber", whereas those who indulge in immoral behavior may be labeled as socially degenerate. The continued existence of a group may depend on widespread conformity to codes of morality; an inability to adjust moral codes in response to new challenges is sometimes credited with the demise of a community (a positive example would be the function of Cistercian reform in reviving monasticism; a negative example would be the role of the Dowager Empress in the subjugation of China to European interests). Within nationalist movements, there has been some tendency to feel that a nation will not survive or prosper without acknowledging one common morality, regardless of its content. Political Morality is also relevant to the behaviour internationally of national governments, and to the support they receive from their host population. Noam Chomsky states that [26][27]

... if we adopt the principle of universality : if an action is right (or wrong) for others, it is right (or wrong) for us. Those who do not rise to the minimal moral level of applying to themselves the standards they apply to othersmore stringent ones, in factplainly cannot be taken seriously when they speak of appropriateness of response; or of right and wrong, good and evil. In fact, one of the, maybe the most, elementary of moral principles is that of universality, that is, If something's right for me, it's right for you; if it's wrong for you, it's wrong for me. Any moral code that is even worth looking at has that at its core somehow.

[edit] Morality and religion

See also: Divine command theory and Morality without religion Many religions provide moral guidelines for their followers. They believe that the divine has instructed them with a way to live and that following these rules will lead to good social structure, and closer communion with the divine. A 2005 study by Gregory S. Paul published in the Journal of Religion and Society argues for a positive correlation between the degree of public religiosity in a society and certain measures of dysfunction,[28] an analysis published later in the same journal contends that a number of methodological problems undermine any findings or conclusions to be taken from the research.[29] In another response, Gary Jensen builds on and refines Paul's study.[30] His conclusion, after carrying out elaborate multivariate statistical studies, is that a complex relationship exists between religiosity and homicide with some dimensions of religiosity encouraging homicide and other dimensions discouraging it." Meanwhile, other studies seem to show positive links in the

relationship between religiosity and moral behavior[31][32][33]for example, surveys suggesting a positive connection between faith and altruism.[34] Modern research in criminology also acknowledges an inverse relationship between religion and crime,[35] with many studies establishing this beneficial connection (though some claim it is a modest one).[36] Indeed, a metaanalysis of 60 studies on religion and crime concluded, religious behaviors and beliefs exert a moderate deterrent effect on individuals criminal behavior.[37]

[edit] Moral codes

Codified morality is generally distinguished from custom, another way for a community to define appropriate activity, by the former's derivation from natural or universal principles. Some religious communities see the Divine as providing these principles through revelation, sometimes in great detail. Such codes may be called laws, as in the Law of Moses, or community morality may be defined through commentary on the texts of revelation, as in Islamic law. Such codes are distinguished from legal or judicial right, including civil rights, which are based on the accumulated traditions, decrees and legislation of a political authority, though these latter often invoke the authority of the moral law. Morality can also be seen as the collection of beliefs as to what constitutes a good life. Since throughout most of human history, religions have provided both visions and regulations for an ideal life, morality is often confused with religious precepts. In secular communities, lifestyle choices, which represent an individual's conception of the good life, are often discussed in terms of "morality." Individuals sometimes feel that making an appropriate lifestyle choice invokes a true morality, and that accepted codes of conduct within their chosen community are fundamentally moral, even when such codes deviate from more general social principles. Moral codes are often complex definitions of moral and immoral that are based upon well-defined value systems. Although some people might think that a moral code is simple, rarely is there anything simple about one's values, ethics, etc. or, for that matter, the judgment of those of others. The difficulty lies in the fact that morals are often part of a religion and more often than not about culture codes. Sometimes, moral codes give way to legal codes, which couple penalties or corrective actions with particular practices. Note that while many legal codes are merely built on a foundation of religious and/or cultural moral codes, often they are one and the same. Examples of moral codes include the Golden Rule; the Five Precepts and the Noble Eightfold Path of Buddhism (see la); the ancient Egyptian code of Ma'at; the Ten Commandments of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam; Judaism's Noahide Law; and the yamas and niyama of the Hindu scriptures. Another related concept is the moral core which is assumed to be innate in each individual, to those who accept that differences between individuals are more important than posited Creators or their rules. This, in some religious systems and beliefs (e.g. Taoism and Gnosticism), is assumed to be the basis of all aesthetics and thus moral choice. Moral codes as such are therefore seen as coercivepart of human politics.

Moral responsibility usually refers to the idea that a person has moral obligations in certain situations. Disobeying moral obligations, then, becomes grounds for justified punishment. Deciding what justifies punishment, if anything, is a principle concern of Ethics. People who have moral responsibility for an action are usually called moral agents. Agents are creatures that are capable of reflecting on their situation, forming intentions about how they will act, and then carrying out that action.

Different philosophies disagree over when, why (and even whether) punishment is justified

Society generally holds people responsible for their actions, and will say that they deserve praise or blame for what they do. However, many believe that moral responsibility requires free will. Thus, another important issue in the debate on free will is whether individuals are ever morally responsible for their actionsand, if so, in what sense. Incompatibilists think that determinism is at odds with free will, whereas Compatibilists think the two both exist. Another concept important to the responsibility of an agent is the Fallacy of the single cause, which points out that a person can never be wholly responsible for an outcome. Moreover, moral responsibility is not necessarily the same as legal responsibility. A person is legally responsible for an event when it is that person who is liable to be penalised in the court system for an event. Although it may often be the case that when a person is morally responsible for some act, they are also legally responsible for it, the two systems do not always coincide.

Contents
[hide]

1 Philosophical stances o 1.1 Metaphysical libertarianism 1.1.1 The argument from luck o 1.2 Compatibilism o 1.3 Hard determinism o 1.4 Other views 2 Experimental research

3 Collective moral responsibility 4 Further reading o 4.1 See also o 4.2 Footnotes o 4.3 References
o

4.4 External links

[edit] Philosophical stances

Depending on how a philosopher deals with the Standard argument against free will, they will have different views on moral responsibility.

[edit] Metaphysical libertarianism

Various philosophical positions exist, disagreeing over Determinism and Free will

Metaphysical libertarians maintain that undetermined actions, although scientifically probabilistic, are not "random" at all. Thus the libertarian attempts to reconcile free will with Indeterminism.[1] For example, Dualism or appeals to a soul. This argument may be considered unsatisfactory by detractors, who criticize that it only pushes back the question of what metaphysical agent is actually responsible. Metaphysical libertarians believe it is impossible that one can hold someone responsible for an action that could be predicted from (theoretically) the beginning of time. Jean-Paul Sartre suggested that people sometimes avoid incrimination and responsibility by hiding behind determinism: "... we are always ready to take refuge in a belief in determinism if this freedom weighs upon us or if we need an excuse".[2] Of course, whether individuals really hide behind the doctrines of Determinism has no bearing on the truth of those doctrines. A similar view has it that individual moral culpability lies in individual character. That is, a person with the character of a murderer has no choice other than to murder, but can still be punished because it is right to punish those of bad character. How one's character was determined is irrelevant from this perspective. Robert Cummins, for example, argues that people should not be judged for their individual actions, but rather for how those actions "reflect on their character". If character (however defined) is the dominant causal factor in determining one's choices, and one's choices are morally wrong, then one should be held accountable for those choices, regardless of genes and other such factors.[3][4]

In law, there is a known exception to the assumption that moral culpability lies in either individual character or freely willed acts. The insanity defense or its corollary, diminished responsibility (a sort of appeal to the Fallacy of the single cause) can be used to argue that the guilty deed was not the product of a guilty mind.[5] In such cases, the legal systems of most Western societies assume that the person is in some way not at fault, because his actions were a consequence of abnormal brain function.

[edit] The argument from luck

The argument from luck is a criticism against the Libertarian conception of moral responsibility. It suggests that any given action, and even a person's character, are the result of various forces outside that person's control. It may not be reasonable, then, to hold that person solely morally responsible.[6] Thomas Nagel suggests that four different types of luck (including genetic influences and other external factors) end up influencing the way that a person's actions are evaluated morally. For instance, a person driving drunk may make it home without incident, and yet this action of drunk driving might seem more morally objectionable if someone happens to jaywalk along his path (getting hit by the car).[7] This argument can be traced back to David Hume. If physical indeterminism is true, then those events that are not determined are scientifically described as probabilistic (either probable or improbable, for example random). It is therefore argued that it is doubtful that one can praise or blame someone for performing an action generated randomly by his nervous system (without there being any non physical agency responsible for the observed probabilistic outcome).[8]

[edit] Compatibilism

Compatibilism suggests "free will" should only be used to mean something more like Liberty

Compatibilists argue that determinism is a prerequisite for moral responsibility, and that society cannot hold someone responsible unless his actions were determined by something. Compatibilist views on morality revolved around their understanding "free will" to mean something more akin to Liberty or a "freedom to act". By using Liberty rather than a 'free will' in moral considerations, Compatibilist ethical systems are often similar (even identical) to the systems devised by Hard determinism (below).

[edit] Hard determinism

Hard determinists (not to be confused with Fatalism) often use Liberty (like Compatibilists) in practical moral considerations, rather than a notion of a free will. Indeed, faced with the possibility that determinism requires a completely different moral system, some proponents say "So much the worse for free will!".[9] Clarence Darrow, the famous defense attorney, pleaded the innocence of his clients, Leopold and Loeb, by invoking such a notion of hard determinism.[10] During his summation, he declared: What has this boy to do with it? He was not his own father; he was not his own mother; he was not his own grandparents. All of this was handed to him. He did not surround himself with governesses and wealth. He did not make himself. And yet he is to be compelled to pay.[10] St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans addresses the question of moral responsibility as follows: "Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?"[11] In this view, individuals can still be dishonoured for their acts even though those acts were ultimately completely determined by God. Joshua Greene and Jonathan Cohen, researchers in the emerging field of neuroethics, argue, on the basis of such cases, that our current notion of moral responsibility is founded on libertarian (and dualist) intuitions.[12] They argue that cognitive neuroscience research (e.g. Neuroscience of free will) is undermining these intuitions by showing that the brain is responsible for our actions, not only in cases of florid psychosis, but even in less obvious situations. For example, damage to the frontal lobe reduces the ability to weigh uncertain risks and make prudent decisions, and therefore leads to an increased likelihood that someone will commit a violent crime.[13] This is true not only of patients with damage to the frontal lobe due to accident or stroke, but also of adolescents, who show reduced frontal lobe activity compared to adults,[14] and even of children who are chronically neglected or mistreated.[15] In each case, the guilty party can, they argue, be said to have less responsibility for his actions.[12] Greene and Cohen predict that, as such examples become more common and well known, jurors interpretations of free will and moral responsibility will move away from the intuitive libertarian notion that currently underpins them. Greene and Cohen also argue that the legal system does not require this libertarian interpretation. Rather, they suggest that only retributive notions of justice, in which the goal of the legal system is to punish people for misdeeds, require the libertarian intuition. Many forms of ethically realistic and Consequentialist approaches to justice, which are aimed at promoting future welfare rather than retribution, can survive even a hard determinist interpretation of free will. Accordingly, the legal system and notions of justice can thus be maintained even in the face of emerging neuroscientific evidence undermining libertarian intuitions of free will. An example might be the ethically naturalistic endeavours of the Science of morality.

[edit] Other views

Daniel Dennett asks why anyone would care about whether someone had the property of responsibility and speculates that the idea of moral responsibility may be "a purely metaphysical hankering".[16]

[edit] Experimental research

Mauro suggests that a sense of personal responsibility does not operate or evolve universally among humankind. He argues that it was absent in the successful civilization of the Iroquois.[17] In recent years, research in experimental philosophy has explored whether people's untutored intuitions about determinism and moral responsibility are compatibilist or incompatibilist.[18] Some experimental work has included cross-cultural studies.[19] However, the debate about whether people naturally have compatibilist or incompatibilist intuitions has not come out overwhelmingly in favor of one view or the other, finding evidence for both views. For instance, when people are presented with abstract cases that ask if a person could be morally responsible for an immoral act when they could not have done otherwise, people tend to say no, or give incompatibilist answers. When presented with a specific immoral act that a specific person committed, people tend to say that that person is morally responsible for their actions, even if they were determined (that is, people also give compatibilist answers).[20] "Personal responsibility is taking the initiative to assess, accept, and seek out measures to resolve or improve a situation that may have been created by our own person." Dr. Asa Don Brown, Waiting to Live The Neuroscience of free will mentions various experiments that might shed light on free will.

[edit] Collective moral responsibility

When people attribute moral responsibility, they usually attribute it to individual moral agents. However, Joel Feinberg, among others, has argued that corporations and other groups of people can have what is called collective moral responsibility for a state of affairs.[21] For example, when South Africa had an apartheid regime, the country's government might have been said to have had collective moral responsibility for the violation of the rights of non-European South Africans. Justice is the concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, fairness, or equity, along with the punishment of the breach of said ethics.[2]

Contents
[hide]

1 Concept of justice 2 Variations of justice 3 Understandings of justice o 3.1 Justice as harmony o 3.2 Justice as divine command o 3.3 Justice as natural law o 3.4 Justice as human creation 3.4.1 Justice as trickery

3.4.2 Justice as mutual agreement 3.5 Justice as a subordinate value 4 Theories of distributive justice o 4.1 Egalitarianism o 4.2 Giving people what they deserve o 4.3 Fairness o 4.4 Property rights (non-coercion)/Having the right history o 4.5 Welfare-maximization 5 Theories of retributive justice o 5.1 Utilitarianism o 5.2 Retributivism o 5.3 Mixed theories 6 Institutions 7 See also 8 References 9 Further reading o

10 External links

[edit] Concept of justice

According to most theories of justice, it is overwhelmingly important: John Rawls claims that "Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought."[3] Justice can be thought of as distinct from and more fundamental than benevolence, charity, mercy, generosity or compassion. Justice has traditionally been associated with concepts of fate, reincarnation or Divine Providence, i.e. with a life in accordance with the cosmic plan. The association of justice with fairness has thus been historically and culturally rare and is perhaps chiefly a modern innovation [in western societies].[4] Studies at UCLA in 2008 have indicated that reactions to fairness are "wired" into the brain and that, "Fairness is activating the same part of the brain that responds to food in rats... This is consistent with the notion that being treated fairly satisfies a basic need".[5] Research conducted in 2003 at Emory University, Georgia, involving Capuchin Monkeys demonstrated that other cooperative animals also possess such a sense and that "inequity aversion may not be uniquely human."[6] indicating that ideas of fairness and justice may be instinctual in nature.

[edit] Variations of justice

Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, where punishment is forward-looking. Justified by the ability to achieve future social benefits resulting in crime reduction, the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome. Retributive justice regulates proportionate response to crime proven by lawful evidence, so that punishment is justly imposed and considered as morally correct and fully deserved. The law of

retaliation (lex talionis) is a military theory of retributive justice, which says that reciprocity should be equal to the wrong suffered; "life for life, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."[7] Restorative justice is concerned not so much with retribution and punishment as with (a) making the victim whole and (b) reintegrating the offender into society. This approach frequently brings an offender and a victim together, so that the offender can better understand the effect his/her offense had on the victim. Distributive justice is directed at the proper allocation of things wealth, power, reward, respect among different people. Oppressive Law exercises an authoritarian approach to legislation that is "totally unrelated to justice", a tyrannical interpretation of law is one in which the population lives under restriction from unlawful legislation. Some theorists, such as the classical Greeks and Romans, conceive of justice as a virtuea property of people, and only derivatively of their actions and the institutions they create. Others emphasize actions or institutions, and only derivatively the people who bring them about. The source of justice has variously been attributed to harmony, divine command, natural law, or human creation.

[edit] Understandings of justice

Justice by Luca Giordano

Understandings of justice differ in each culture, as cultures are dependent on a shared history and mythology and/or religion. Each culture's ethics create values which influence the notion of justice. Although there can be found some justice principles that are one and the same in all or most of the cultures, these are insufficient to create a unitary justice apprehension.

[edit] Justice as harmony

Main article: Republic (dialogue) In his dialogue Republic, Plato uses Socrates to argue for justice that covers both the just person and the just City State. Justice is a proper, harmonious relationship between the warring parts of the person or city. Hence Plato's definition of justice is that justice is the having and doing of what is one's own. A just man is a man in just the right place, doing his best and giving the precise equivalent of what he has received. This applies both at the individual level and at the universal level. A person's soul has three parts reason, spirit and desire. Similarly, a city has three parts Socrates uses the parable of the chariot to illustrate his point: a chariot works as a whole because the two horses power is directed by the charioteer. Lovers of wisdom philosophers, in one sense of the term should rule because only they understand what is good. If one is ill, one goes to a doctor rather than a psychologist, because the doctor is expert in the subject of health. Similarly, one should trust one's city to an expert in the subject of the good, not to a mere politician who tries to gain power by giving people what they want, rather than what's good for them. Socrates uses the parable of the ship to illustrate this point: the unjust city is like a ship in open ocean, crewed by a powerful but drunken captain (the common people), a group of untrustworthy advisors who try to manipulate the captain into giving them power over the ship's course (the politicians), and a navigator (the philosopher) who is the only one who knows how to get the ship to port. For Socrates, the only way the ship will reach its destination the good is if the navigator takes charge.[8]

[edit] Justice as divine command

Main article: Divine command theory Justice as a divine law is commanding, and indeed the whole of morality, is the authoritative command. Killing is wrong and therefore must be punished and if not punished what should be done? A famous paradox called the Euthyphro dilemma essentially asks: is something right because God commands it, or does God command it because it's right? If the former, then justice is arbitrary; if the latter, then morality exists on a higher order than God, who becomes little more than a passer-on of moral knowledge. Some[who?] Divine command advocates respond by saying that the dilemma is false: goodness is the very nature of God and is necessarily expressed in His commands.

[edit] Justice as natural law

Main article: Natural law

For advocates of the theory that justice is part of natural law (e.g., John Locke), it involves the system of consequences that naturally derives from any action or choice. In this, it is similar to the laws of physics: in the same way as the Third of Newton's laws of Motion requires that for every action there must be an equal and opposite reaction, justice requires according individuals or groups what they actually deserve, merit, or are entitled to. Justice, on this account, is a universal and absolute concept: laws, principles, religions, etc., are merely attempts to codify that concept, sometimes with results that entirely contradict the true nature of justice.

[edit] Justice as human creation

In contrast to the understandings canvassed so far, justice may be understood as a human creation, rather than a discovery of harmony, divine command, or natural law. This claim can be understood in a number of ways, with the fundamental division being between those who argue that justice is the creation of some humans, and those who argue that it is the creation of all humans. [edit] Justice as trickery In Republic, the character Thrasymachus argues that justice is the interest of the strongmerely a name for what the powerful or cunning ruler has imposed on the people. Further information: Republic (dialogue), Master-slave morality [edit] Justice as mutual agreement Main article: Social contract According to thinkers in the social contract tradition, justice is derived from the mutual agreement of everyone concerned; or, in many versions, from what they would agree to under hypothetical conditions including equality and absence of bias. This account is considered further below, under Justice as fairness.

[edit] Justice as a subordinate value

According to utilitarian thinkers including John Stuart Mill, justice is not as fundamental as we often think. Rather, it is derived from the more basic standard of rightness, consequentialism: what is right is what has the best consequences (usually measured by the total or average welfare caused). So, the proper principles of justice are those that tend to have the best consequences. These rules may turn out to be familiar ones such as keeping contracts; but equally, they may not, depending on the facts about real consequences. Either way, what is important is those consequences, and justice is important, if at all, only as derived from that fundamental standard. Mill tries to explain our mistaken belief that justice is overwhelmingly important by arguing that it derives from two natural human tendencies: our desire to retaliate against those who hurt us, and our ability to put ourselves imaginatively in another's place. So, when we see someone harmed, we project ourselves into her situation and feel a desire to retaliate on her behalf. If this process is the source of our feelings about justice, that ought to undermine our confidence in them.[9]

[edit] Theories of distributive justice

Main article: Distributive justice

Allegory or The Triumph of Justice by Hans von Aachen Theories of distributive justice need to answer three questions:
1. What goods are to be distributed? Is it to be wealth, power, respect, some combination of

these things?
2. Between what entities are they to be distributed? Humans (dead, living, future), sentient

beings, the members of a single society, nations? 3. What is the proper distribution? Equal, meritocratic, according to social status, according to need, based on property rights and non-aggression? Distributive justice theorists generally do not answer questions of who has the right to enforce a particular favored distribution. On the other hand, property rights theorists argue that there is no "favored distribution." Rather, distribution should be based simply on whatever distribution results from non-coerced interactions or transactions (that is, transactions not based upon force or fraud). This section describes some widely held theories of distributive justice, and their attempts to answer these questions.

[edit] Egalitarianism
Main article: Egalitarianism According to the egalitarian, justice can only exist within the coordinates of equality. This basic view can be elaborated in many different ways, according to what goods are to be distributed wealth, respect, opportunityand what they are to be distributed equally betweenindividuals,

families, nations, races, species. Commonly held egalitarian positions include demands for equality of opportunity and for equality of outcome. It affirms that freedom and justice without equality are hollow and that equality itself is the highest justice. At a cultural level, egalitarian theories have developed in sophistication and acceptance during the past two hundred years. Among the notable broadly egalitarian philosophies are socialism, communism, anarchism, left-libertarianism, and progressivism, all of which propound economic, political, and legal egalitarianism, respectively. Several egalitarian ideas enjoy wide support among intellectuals and in the general populations of many countries. Whether any of these ideas have been significantly implemented in practice, however, remains a controversial question. One argument is that liberalism provides democracy with the experience of civic reformism. Without it, democracy loses any tieargumentative or practicalto a coherent design of public policy endeavoring to provide the resources for the realization of democratic citizenship.

[edit] Giving people what they deserve

In one sense, all theories of distributive justice claim that everyone should get what they deserve. Theories disagree on the basis for deserving. The main distinction is between theories that argue the basis of just deserts is held equally by everyone, and therefore derive egalitarian accounts of distributive justiceand theories that argue the basis of just deserts is unequally distributed on the basis of, for instance, hard work, and therefore derive accounts of distributive justice by which some should have more than others. This section deals with some popular theories of the second type. According to meritocratic theories, goods, especially wealth and social status, should be distributed to match individual merit, which is usually understood as some combination of talent and hard work. According to needs-based theories, goods, especially such basic goods as food, shelter and medical care, should be distributed to meet individuals' basic needs for them. Marxism can be regarded as a needs-based theory on some readings of Marx's slogan "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".[10] According to contribution-based theories, goods should be distributed to match an individual's contribution to the overall social good.

[edit] Fairness
Main article: A Theory of Justice

J. L. Urban, statue of Lady Justice at court building in Olomouc, Czech Republic In his A Theory of Justice, John Rawls used a social contract argument to show that justice, and especially distributive justice, is a form of fairness: an impartial distribution of goods. Rawls asks us to imagine ourselves behind a veil of ignorance that denies us all knowledge of our personalities, social statuses, moral characters, wealth, talents and life plans, and then asks what theory of justice we would choose to govern our society when the veil is lifted, if we wanted to do the best that we could for ourselves. We dont know who in particular we are, and therefore cant bias the decision in our own favour. So, the decision-in-ignorance models fairness, because it excludes selfish bias. Rawls argues that each of us would reject the utilitarian theory of justice that we should maximize welfare (see below) because of the risk that we might turn out to be someone whose own good is sacrificed for greater benefits for others. Instead, we would endorse Rawls's two principles of justice:

Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all. Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both o to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just savings principle, and o attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.[11]

This imagined choice justifies these principles as the principles of justice for us, because we would agree to them in a fair decision procedure. Rawls's theory distinguishes two kinds of goods (1) liberties and (2) social and economic goods, i.e. wealth, income and power and applies different distributions to them equality between citizens for (1), equality unless inequality improves the position of the worst off for (2).

[edit] Property rights (non-coercion)/Having the right history

Robert Nozick's influential critique of Rawls argues that distributive justice is not a matter of the whole distribution matching an ideal pattern, but of each individual entitlement having the right kind of history. It is just that a person has some good (especially, some property right) if and only if they came to have it by a history made up entirely of events of two kinds: 1. Just acquisition, especially by working on unowned things; and 2. Just transfer, that is free gift, sale or other agreement, but not theft (i.e. by force or fraud). If the chain of events leading up to the person having something meets this criterion, they are entitled to it: that they possess it is just, and what anyone else does or doesn't have or need is irrelevant. On the basis of this theory of distributive justice, Nozick argues that all attempts to redistribute goods according to an ideal pattern, without the consent of their owners, are theft. In particular, redistributive taxation is theft. Some property rights theorists also take a consequentialist view of distributive justice and argue that property rights based justice also has the effect of maximizing the overall wealth of an economic system. They explain that voluntary (non-coerced) transactions always have a property called pareto efficiency. A pareto efficient transaction is one where at least one party ends up better off and neither party ends up worse off. The result is that the world is better off in an absolute sense and no one is worse off. Such consequentialist property rights theorists argue that respecting property rights maximizes the number of pareto efficient transactions in the world and minimized the number of non-pareto efficient transactions in the world (i.e. transactions where someone is made worse off). The result is that the world will have generated the greatest total benefit from the limited, scarce resources available in the world. Further, this will have been accomplished without taking anything away from anyone by coercion. Further information: Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Libertarianism, Constitutional economics

[edit] Welfare-maximization
Main article: Utilitarianism According to the utilitarian, justice requires the maximization of the total or average welfare across all relevant individuals. This may require sacrifice of some for the good of others, so long as everyone's good is taken impartially into account. Utilitarianism, in general, argues that the standard of justification for actions, institutions, or the whole world, is impartial welfare consequentialism, and only indirectly, if at all, to do with rights, property, need, or any other nonutilitarian criterion. These other criteria might be indirectly important, to the extent that human welfare involves them. But even then, such demands as human rights would only be elements in the calculation of overall welfare, not uncrossable barriers to action.

[edit] Theories of retributive justice

Walter Seymour Allward's Justicia (Justice), outside Supreme Court of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario Canada Theories of retributive justice are concerned with punishment for wrongdoing, and need to answer three questions:
1. why punish? 2. who should be punished? 3. what punishment should they receive?

This section considers the two major accounts of retributive justice, and their answers to these questions. Utilitarian theories look forward to the future consequences of punishment, while retributive theories look back to particular acts of wrongdoing, and attempt to balance them with deserved punishment.

[edit] Utilitarianism
According to the utilitarian, as already noted, justice requires the maximization of the total or average welfare across all relevant individuals. Punishment is bad treatment of someone, and therefore cant be good in itself, for the utilitarian. But punishment might be a necessary sacrifice that maximizes the overall good in the long term, in one or more of three ways:
1. Deterrence. The credible threat of punishment might lead people to make different choices;

well-designed threats might lead people to make choices that maximize welfare.

2. Rehabilitation. Punishment might make bad people into better ones. For the utilitarian, all

that bad person can mean is person who's likely to cause bad things (like suffering) . So, utilitarianism could recommend punishment that changes someone such that they are less likely to cause bad things. 3. Security/Incapacitation. Perhaps there are people who are irredeemable causers of bad things. If so, imprisoning them might maximize welfare by limiting their opportunities to cause harm and therefore the benefit lies within protecting society. So, the reason for punishment is the maximization of welfare, and punishment should be of whomever, and of whatever form and severity, are needed to meet that goal. Worryingly, this may sometimes justify punishing the innocent, or inflicting disproportionately severe punishments, when that will have the best consequences overall (perhaps executing a few suspected shoplifters live on television would be an effective deterrent to shoplifting, for instance). It also suggests that punishment might turn out never to be right, depending on the facts about what actual consequences it has.[12]

[edit] Retributivism
Main article: Retributive justice The retributivist will think the utilitarian's argument disastrously mistaken. If someone does something wrong, we must respond to it, and to him or her, as an individual, not as a part of a calculation of overall welfare. To do otherwise is to disrespect him or her as an individual human being. If the crime had victims, it is to disrespect them, too. Wrongdoing must be balanced or made good in some way, and so the criminal deserves to be punished. Retributivism emphasizes retribution payback rather than maximization of welfare. Like the theory of distributive justice as giving everyone what they deserve (see above), it links justice with desert. It says that all guilty people, and only guilty people, deserve appropriate punishment. This matches some strong intuitions about just punishment: that it should be proportional to the crime, and that it should be of only and all of the guilty. However, it is sometimes argued that retributivism is merely revenge in disguise.[13] Despite this criticism, there are numerous differences between retribution and revenge: the former is impartial, has a scale of appropriateness and corrects a moral wrong, whereas the latter is personal, unlimited in scale, and often corrects a slight. Further information: Deontological ethics

[edit] Mixed theories

Some modern philosophers have argued that Utilitarian and Retributive theories are not mutually exclusive. Fore example, Andrew Von Hirsch, in his 1976 book Doing Justice, suggested that we have a moral obligation to punish greater crimes more than lesser ones. However, so long as we adhere to that constraint then utilitarian ideals would play a significant secondary role.

[edit] Institutions

The Justices of the United States Supreme Court with President George W. Bush, October 2005 Main article: Law In a world where people are interconnected but they disagree, institutions are required to instantiate ideals of justice. These institutions may be justified by their approximate instantiation of justice, or they may be deeply unjust when compared with ideal standards consider the institution of slavery. Justice is an ideal the world fails to live up to, sometimes despite good intentions, sometimes disastrously. The question of institutive justice raises issues of legitimacy, procedure, codification and interpretation, which are considered by legal theorists and by philosophers of law. Another definition of justice is an independent investigation of truth. In a court room, lawyers, the judge and the jury are supposed to be independently investigating the truth of an alleged crime. In physics, a group of physicists examine data and theoretical concepts to consult on what might be the truth or reality of a phenomenon. A principle is a law or rule that has to be, or usually is to be followed, or can be desirably followed, or is an inevitable consequence of something, such as the laws observed in nature or the way that a system is constructed. The principles of such a system are understood by its users as the essential characteristics of the system, or reflecting system's designed purpose, and the effective operation or use of which would be impossible if any one of the principles was to be ignored.[1] Examples of principles:

a descriptive comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption a normative rule or code of conduct, a law or fact of nature underlying the working of an artificial device.

Contents
[hide]

1 Principle as cause o 1.1 Principle of Causality, as efficient cause o 1.2 Principle as a final cause 2 Principle as law o 2.1 Principle as scientific law

2.2 Principle as moral law 2.3 Principle as a juridic law 3 Principle as axiom or logical fundament o 3.1 Principle of Sufficient Reason o 3.2 Principle of Identity o 3.3 Principle of contradiction o 3.4 Principle of excluded middle
o o

4 See also

[edit] Principle as cause

The principle of any effect is the cause that produces it. Depending on the way the cause is understood the basic law governing that cause may acquire some distinction in its expression.

[edit] Principle of Causality, as efficient cause

The efficient cause is the one that produces the necessary effect, as long as the necessary and sufficient conditions are provided. The scientific process generally consists of establishing a cause by analyzing its effect upon objects. In this way, a description can be established to explain what principle brought about the change-effect. For this reason the principle of cause is considered to be a determining factor in the production of facts. With the belief that "every effect has a cause", it's considered that everything that begins to exist must have a cause. This is considered as the principle of causality. It was formulated by Aristotle as "Everything that moves is moved by another". This principle is used as a powerful argument for the potential existence of a creator-god dues to the regressive nature of the principle, which inevitably requires a first-cause.

[edit] Principle as a final cause

Final cause is the end, or goal, which guides one to take the necessary actions to obtain it. For that there needs to be an intelligence capable of conceiving the end and realizing that certain actions must be taken to achieve the goal. Science does not recognize the finality of the natural causes as a guiding principle of investigation. It is also understood therefore that the principle guides the action as a norm or rule of behavior, which produces two types of principles.

[edit] Principle as law

[edit] Principle as scientific law
Laws Physics. Laws Statistics. Laws Biological. Laws of nature are those that can not be proven explicitly, however we can measure and quantify them observing the results that they produce. (Vague or unclear statement).

[edit] Principle as moral law

It represents a set of values that orientate and rule the conduct of a concrete society. The law establishes an obligation in the individual's conscience that belongs to the cultural field in which such values are accepted. It supposes the liberty of the individual as cause, that acts without external coercion, through a process of socialization.

[edit] Principle as a juridic law

It represents a set of values that inspire the written norms that organize the life of a society submitting to the powers of an authority, generally the State. The law establishes a legal obligation, in a coercive way; it therefore acts as principle conditioning of the action that limits the liberty of the individuals.

[edit] Principle as axiom or logical fundament

[edit] Principle of Sufficient Reason
This is based on the truth or intelligibility of the being. The being has an identity and is intelligible, in virtue that it is. (The intelligibility is the identity of the being with intelligence.) That in virtue of which the being is intelligible, is called the reason or fundament of being. Here is the ontological principle: Every being has enough reason. Without this enough reason, the identity with oneself would be lost, becoming a non-being and therefore nothing. If a being lacked enough reason, of explication, it wouldn't be intelligible, conceiving itself as an absurd unreal non-being.

[edit] Principle of Identity

This comes in consequence from the characteristic of identity of the being. The being is the being, and whoever denies that statement would be against the previously exposed. However, saying "what is, is what is" would seem, as a trial, merely analytical (A = A), but one realizes that in every sentence there is a direct relation between the predicate and the subject. To say "the earth is round", corresponds to a direct relation between the subject and the predicate. Taking this to the sentence "the being is the being", we realize the principle of identity that the being possesses.

[edit] Principle of contradiction

"One thing can't be and not be at the same time, under the same aspect." Example: It is not possible that in exactly the same moment it rains and doesn't rain (in the same place). see Law of noncontradiction

[edit] Principle of excluded middle

The principle of the excluding third or "principium tertium exclusum" is a principle of the traditional logic formulated canonically by Leibniz as: either A is B or A isn't B. It is read the following way: either P is true, or its denial P is. It is also known as "tertium non datur" ('A third (thing) is not). Classically it is considered to be one of the most important fundamental principles or laws of thought (along with the principles of identity, no contradiction and sufficient reason). see Law of excluded middle. ^ Alpa, Guido (1994) "General Principles of Law," Annual Survey of International & Comparative Law: Vol. 1: Iss. 1, Article 2. [1],
1.

Virtue (Latin: virtus, Greek: "arete") is moral excellence. A virtue is a trait or quality deemed to be morally excellent and thus is valued as a foundation of principle and good moral being. [[ Personal virtues are characteristics valued as promoting individual and collective well being. The opposite of virtue is vice.

Contents
[hide]

1 Virtues and values 2 Four classic Western virtues 3 Aristotle's virtues 4 Prudence and virtue 5 Roman virtues 6 Abrahamic religions o 6.1 The Jewish tradition o 6.2 The Christian tradition o 6.3 The Muslim tradition o 6.4 The Bah' tradition 7 Hindu virtues 8 The Buddhist tradition 9 In Chinese philosophy 10 Chinese martial morality 11 Samurai values 12 View of Nietzsche 13 Virtues according to Benjamin Franklin 14 In Objectivism 15 Vice as opposite 16 In modern psychology

17 See also 18 References 19 External links

[edit] Virtues and values

This section does not cite any references or sources.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2010)

Virtue is a behavior showing a high moral standard and is a pattern of thought and behavior based on high moral standards. Virtues can be placed into a broader context of values. Each individual has a core of underlying values that contribute to his or her system of beliefs, ideas and/or opinions (see value in semiotics). Integrity in the application of a value ensures its continuity and this continuity separates a value from beliefs, opinion and ideas. In this context, a value (e.g., Truth or Equality or Creed) is the core from which we operate or react. Societies have values that are shared among many of the participants in that culture. An individual's values typically are largely, but not entirely, in agreement with his or her culture's values. Individual virtues can be grouped into one of four categories of values:

Ethics (virtue - vice, good - evil, moral - immoral - amoral, right - wrong) Aesthetics (unbalanced, pleasing) Doctrinal (political, ideological, religious or social beliefs and values) Innate/inborn

Examples of virtues include:

ability acceptance altruism assertiveness attention, focus autonomy awareness balance benevolence candor caring caution charity chastity citizenship cleanliness commitment

diligence discernment ethical egoism empathy encouragement endurance enthusiasm equanimity fairness faithfulness, fidelity flexibility foresight forgiveness fortitude friendliness generosity

integrity intuition inventiveness justice kindness knowledge logic lovingness loyalty meekness mercy mindfulness moderation modesty morality nonviolence nurturing

readiness remembrance resilience respectfulness responsibility restraint, self control reverence salubrity self-awareness self-confidence self-discipline self-reliance self-respect sensitivity service sharing

compassion confidence conscientiousness consideration contentment cooperativeness courage courteousness creativity curiosity dependability detachment determination

gentleness goodness gratitude, appreciation helpfulness honesty honor hopefulness hospitality humility humor impartiality independence individualism industriousness

obedience openness optimism order patience peacefulness perseverance philomathy piety potential poverty prudence purity purposefulness reason

sincerity spirituality stability strength sympathy tactfulness temperance tenacity thankfulness thoughtfulness trustworthiness truthfulness understanding unity vigilance wisdom wit

[edit] Four classic Western virtues

Virtue, sword in hand, with her foot on the prostrate form of Tyranny on the Great Seal of Virginia. The four classic Western Cardinal virtues are:

temperance: (sphrosyn) prudence: (phronsis) fortitude: (andreia) justice: (dikaiosyn)

This enumeration is traced to Greek philosophy and was listed at least by Plato, if not also by Socrates, from whom no attributable written works exist. Plato also mentions "Holiness".

It is likely that Plato believed that virtue was, in fact, a single thing, and that this enumeration was created by others in order to better define virtue. In Protagoras and Meno, he states that the separate virtues can't exist independently and offers as evidence the contradictions of acting with wisdom (prudence), yet in an unjust way, or acting with bravery (fortitude), yet without knowing (prudence).

[edit] Aristotle's virtues

In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle defined a virtue as a balance point between a deficiency and an excess of a trait. The point of greatest virtue lies not in the exact middle, but at a golden mean sometimes closer to one extreme than the other. For example, courage is the mean between cowardice and foolhardiness, confidence the mean between self-deprecation and vanity, and generosity the mean between miserliness and extravagance. It requires common-sense smarts, not necessarily extreme intelligence, to find this golden mean. In Aristotle's sense, it is excellence at being human, a skill which helps a person survive, thrive, form meaningful relationships and find happiness. Learning virtue is usually difficult at first, but becomes easier with practice over time until it becomes a habit.

[edit] Prudence and virtue

Seneca, the Roman Stoic, said that perfect prudence is indistinguishable from perfect virtue. Thus, in considering all consequences, a prudent person would act in the same way as a virtuous person.
[citation needed]

The same rationale was followed by Plato in Meno, when he wrote that people only act for what they perceive will maximize the good. It is the lack of wisdom which results in the making of a bad choice, rather than a good one. In this way, wisdom is the central part of virtue. However, Plato realized that if virtue was synonymous with wisdom then it could be taught, a possibility he had earlier discounted. He then added "correct belief" as an alternative to knowledge, proposing that knowledge is merely correct belief that has been thought through and "tethered".

[edit] Roman virtues

This section does not cite any references or sources.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2010)

Auctoritas "Spiritual Authority" The sense of one's social standing, built up through experience, Pietas, and Industria. Comitas "Humour" Ease of manner, courtesy, openness, and friendliness. Constantia "Perseverance" Military stamina, mental and physical endurance. Clementia "Mercy" Mildness and gentleness. Dignitas "Dignity" A sense of self-worth, personal pride. Disciplina "Discipline" Military oath under Roman protective law & citizenship. Firmitas "Tenacity" Strength of mind, the ability to stick to one's purpose.

Frugalitas "Frugality" Economy and simplicity of style, without being miserly. Gravitas "Gravity" A sense of the importance of the matter at hand, responsibility and earnestness. Honestas "Respectability" The image that one presents as a respectable member of society. Humanitas "Humanity" Refinement, civilization, learning, and being cultured. Industria "Industriousness" Hard work. Iustitia "Justice" Sense of moral worth to an action. Pietas "Dutifulness" More than religious piety; a respect for the natural order socially, politically, and religiously. Includes the ideas of patriotism and devotion to others. Prudentia "Prudence" Foresight, wisdom, and personal discretion. Salubritas "Wholesomeness" Health and cleanliness. Severitas "Sternness" Gravity, self-control. Veritas "Truthfulness" Honesty in dealing with others. Virtus - "Manliness" - Valor, excellence, courage, character, and worth. Vir meaning "man".

[edit] Abrahamic religions

Virtues fighting vices, stained glass window (14th century) in the Niederhaslach Church

[edit] The Jewish tradition

Throughout rabbinic literature, there are many lists of the central virtues of the Jewish tradition. Pirkei Avot, for example, gives a list of 48 virtues necessary for acquiring Torah. Other lists of virtues are analyzed in the genre of literature known as Musar literature, a literature which methodically explores the nature of virtue and vice. "Compassion" is a virtue that is especially important in the Jewish tradition. God is the Compassionate and is invoked as the Father of Compassion; hence Ramana or Compassionate becomes the usual designation for His revealed word. (Compare, below, the frequent use of raman in the Qur'an).[1] In Biblical Hebrew, sorrow and pity for one in distress, creating a desire to relieve, is a feeling ascribed alike to man and God ("riam," from "reem," the mother, womb). The Rabbis speak of the "thirteen attributes of compassion." The Biblical conception of compassion is the feeling of the parent for the child. Hence, the prophet's appeal in confirmation of his trust in God invokes the feeling of a mother for her offspring (Isa. xlix. 15).[1] Lack of compassion, by contrast, marks a people as cruel (Jer. vi. 23). The repeated injunctions of the Law and the Prophets that the widow, the orphan and the stranger should be protected show how deeply, it is argued, the feeling of compassion was rooted in the hearts of the righteous in ancient Israel.[2] A classic articulation of the Golden Rule (see above) came from the first century Rabbi Hillel the Elder. Renowned in the Jewish tradition as a sage and a scholar, he is associated with the development of the Mishnah and the Talmud and, as such, one of the most important figures in Jewish history. Asked for a summary of the Jewish religion in the most concise terms, Hillel replied (reputedly while standing on one leg): "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah. The rest is the explanation; go and learn."[3] Post 9/11, the words of Rabbi Hillel are frequently quoted in public lectures and interviews around the world by the prominent writer on comparative religion Karen Armstrong.

[edit] The Christian tradition

Main article: Christian ethics See also: Seven virtues In Christianity, the theological virtues are faith, hope and love, a list which comes from 1 Corinthians 13:13 ( (pistis, elpis, agape)). The Christian virtue of love is sometimes called charity and at other times a Greek word agape is used to contrast the love for God & family from other types of love such as friendship or physical affection. According to some Christian philosophers, most notably Thomas Aquinas, the theological virtues are to perfect one's love of God and Man and therefore to harmonize and partake of prudence.

There are many listings of virtue additional to the traditional Christian virtues (faith, hope and love) in the Christian Bible. One is the "Fruit of the Spirit," found in Galatians 5:22-23: "By contrast, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against such things."[4] ( , , .)[5]

[edit] The Muslim tradition

In the Muslim tradition the Qur'an is, as the word of God, the great repository of all virtue in earthly form, and the Prophet, particularly via his hadiths or reported sayings, the exemplar of virtue in human form. The very name of Islam, meaning "submission," proclaims the virtue of submission to the will of God, the acceptance of the way things are. Foremost among God's attributes are mercy and compassion or, in the canonical language of Arabic, Rahman and Rahim. Each of the 114 chapters of the Qur'an, with one exception, begins with the verse, "In the name of God the Compassionate, the Merciful".[6] The Arabic for compassion is rahmah. As a cultural influence, its roots abound in the Qur'an. A good Muslim is to commence each day, each prayer and each significant action by invoking God the Merciful and Compassionate, i.e. by reciting Bi Ism-i-Allah al-Rahman al-Rahim. The Muslim scriptures urge compassion towards captives as well as to widows, orphans and the poor. Traditionally, Zakat, a toll tax to help the poor and needy, is obligatory upon all Muslims (9:60). One of the practical purposes of fasting or sawm during the month of Ramadan is to help one empathize with the hunger pangs of those less fortunate, to enhance sensitivity to the suffering of others and develop compassion for the poor and destitute.[7] The Muslim virtues are: prayer, repentance, honesty, loyalty, sincerity, frugality, prudence, moderation, self-restraint, discipline, perseverance, patience, hope, dignity, courage, justice, tolerance, wisdom, good speech, respect, purity, courtesy, kindness, gratitude, generosity, contentment, and others.[8]

[edit] The Bah' tradition

In the Bah' Faith, virtues are direct spiritual qualities that the human soul possesses, inherited from God Himself. The development and manifestation of these virtues is the theme of the Hidden Words of Bah'u'llh and are discussed in great detail as the underpinnings of a divinely-inspired society by `Abdu'l-Bah in such texts as The Secret of Divine Civilization. Many of the virtues are described with special significance in Bah' scripture, such as:

Truthfulness - the "foundation of all human virtues". Justice - the "best beloved of all things (to God)". Love - the basis for God's creation of mankind. Humility - a condition for being recipient of God's grace.

Trustworthiness - the "goodliest vesture in the sight of God".

The Virtues Project developed by Canadian Bah's Linda Popov, Dan Popov, and John Kavelin, is greatly inspired by the Bah' perspective on virtues.

[edit] Hindu virtues

Hinduism, or Sanatana Dharma (Dharma means moral duty), has pivotal virtues that everyone keeping their Dharma is asked to follow, for they are distinct qualities of manusya (mankind) that allow one to be in the mode of goodness. There are three modes of material nature (guna), as described in the Vedas and other Indian Scriptures: Sattva (goodness,maintenance, stillness, intelligence), Rajas (passion,creation, energy, activity) , and Tamas (ignorance, restraint, inertia, destruction). Every person harbours a mixture of these modes in varying degrees. A person in the mode of Sattva has that mode in prominence in his nature, which he obtains by following the virtues of the Dharma . The modes of Sattva are as follows:[citation needed]

Altruism: Selfless Service to all humanity Restraint and Moderation: This is having restraint and moderation in all things. Sexual relations, eating, and other pleasurable activities should be kept in moderation. Some orthodox followers also believe in sex only in marriage, and being chaste. The degree of restraint and moderation depends on the sect and belief system. Some people believe it means celibacy, while others believe in walking the golden path of moderation, i.e. Not too far to the side of forceful control and total abandon of human pleasures, but also not too far to the side of total indulgence and total abandon for moderation. Honesty: One is required to be honest with oneself, one's family, one's friends, and to all of humanity. Cleanliness: Outer cleanliness is to be cultivated for good health and hygiene. Inner cleanliness is cultivated through devotion to God, selflessness, non-violence and all the other virtues. Inner cleanliness is maintained by refraining from intoxicants. Protection and reverence for the Earth. Universality: Showing tolerance and respect for everyone, everything and the way of the Universe. Peace: One must cultivate a peaceful manner in order to benefit oneself and those around one. Non-Violence/Ahimsa: This means not killing or being violent in any way to any life form or sentient being. This is why those who practice this Dharma are vegetarians, because they see the slaughter of animals for the purpose of food as violent on the grounds that there are less violent ways to maintain a healthy diet. Reverence for elders and teachers: The virtue of reverence for those who have wisdom and those who selflessly teach in love is very important to learn. The Guru or spiritual teacher is one of the highest principals in many Vedic based spiritualities and is likened to that of God.

[edit] The Buddhist tradition

Buddhist practice as outlined in the Noble Eightfold Path can be regarded as a progressive list of virtues.
1. Right View - Realizing the Four Noble Truths (samyag-di, samm-dihi). 2. Right Intention - Commitment to mental and ethical growth in moderation (samyak-

sakalpa, samm-sakappa).
3. Right Speech - One speaks in a non hurtful, not exaggerated, truthful way (samyag-vc,

samm-vc).
4. Right Action - Wholesome action, avoiding action that would do harm (samyak5. 6. 7. 8.

karmnta, samm-kammanta) Right Livelihood - One's job does not harm in any way oneself or others; directly or indirectly (samyag-jva, samm-jva). Right Effort - One makes an effort to improve (samyag-vyyma, samm-vyma). Right Mindfulness - Mental ability to see things for what they are with clear consciousness (samyak-smti, samm-sati). Right Concentration - Wholesome one-pointedness of mind (samyak-samdhi, sammsamdhi).

Buddhism's four brahmavihara ("Divine States") can be more properly regarded as virtues in the European sense. They are:
1. Metta/Maitri: loving-kindness towards all; the hope that a person will be well; loving

kindness is "the wish that all sentient beings, without any exception, be happy."[9] 2. Karu: compassion; the hope that a person's sufferings will diminish; compassion is the "wish for all sentient beings to be free from suffering."[9] 3. Mudita: altruistic joy in the accomplishments of a person, oneself or other; sympathetic joy - "the wholesome attitude of rejoicing in the happiness and virtues of all sentient beings."[9] 4. Upekkha/Upeksha: equanimity, or learning to accept both loss and gain, praise and blame, success and failure with detachment, equally, for oneself and for others. Equanimity means "not to distinguish between friend, enemy or stranger, but to regard every sentient being as equal. It is a clear-minded tranquil state of mind - not being overpowered by delusions, mental dullness or agitation."[10] There are also the Paramitas ("perfections"). In Theravada Buddhism's canonical Buddhavamsa[11] the Ten Perfections (dasa pramiyo) are (original terms in Pali):
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Dna parami : generosity, giving of oneself. Sla parami : virtue, morality, proper conduct. Nekkhamma parami : renunciation. Pa parami : transcendental wisdom, insight. Viriya (also spelt vriya) parami : energy, diligence, vigour, effort. Khanti parami : patience, tolerance, forbearance, acceptance, endurance.

7. Sacca parami : truthfulness, honesty. 8. Adhihna (adhitthana) parami : determination, resolution. 9. Mett parami : loving-kindness. 10. Upekkh (also spelt upekh) parami : equanimity, serenity.

In Mahayana Buddhism, the Lotus Sutra (Saddharmapundarika), lists the Six Perfections as (original terms in Sanskrit):
1. Dna paramita: generosity, giving of oneself (in Chinese, ). 2. la paramita : virtue, morality, discipline, proper conduct (). 3. Knti (kshanti) paramita : patience, tolerance, forbearance, acceptance, endurance (

).

4. Vrya paramita : energy, diligence, vigour, effort, perseverance (). 5. Dhyna paramita : one-pointed concentration, contemplation (). 6. Praj paramita : wisdom, insight ().

In the Ten Stages (Dasabhumika) Sutra, four more Paramitas are listed: 7. Upya paramita: skillful means. 8. Praidhna (pranidhana) paramita: vow, resolution, aspiration, determination. 9. Bala paramita: spiritual power. 10. Jna paramita: knowledge.

[edit] In Chinese philosophy

"Virtue", translated from Chinese de (), is also an important concept in Chinese philosophy, particularly Daoism. De (Chinese: ; pinyin: d; WadeGiles: te) originally meant normative "virtue" in the sense of "personal character; inner strength; integrity", but semantically changed to moral "virtue; kindness; morality". Note the semantic parallel for English virtue, with an archaic meaning of "inner potency; divine power" (as in "by virtue of") and a modern one of "moral excellence; goodness". Confucian moral manifestations of "virtue" include ren ("humanity"), xiao ("filial piety"), and li ("proper behavior, performance of rituals"). In Confucianism, the notion of ren - according to Simon Leys - means "humanity" and "goodness". Ren originally had the archaic meaning in the Confucian Book of Poems of "virility", but progressively took on shades of ethical meaning. (On the origins and transformations of this concept see Lin Yu-sheng: "The evolution of the preConfucian meaning of jen and the Confucian concept of moral autonomy," Monumenta Serica, vol31, 1974-75.) The Daoist concept of De, however, is more subtle, pertaining to the "virtue" or ability that an individual realizes by following the Dao ("the Way"). One important normative value in much of Chinese thinking is that one's social status should result from the amount of virtue that one demonstrates, rather than from one's birth. In the Analects, Confucius explains de as follows: "He who exercises government by means of his virtue may be compared to the north polar star, which keeps its place and all the stars turn towards it."[12]

[edit] Chinese martial morality

This section does not cite any references or sources.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2010)

Morality of deed o Humility (Qian Xu; ) o Loyalty (Zhong Cheng; ) o Respect (Zun Jing; ) o Righteousness (Zheng Yi; ) o Trust (Xin Yong; ) Morality of mind o Courage (Yong Gan; ) o Endurance (Ren Nai; ) o Patience (Heng Xin; ) o Perseverance (Yi Li; ) o Will (Yi Zhi; )

[edit] Samurai values

In Hagakure, the quintessential book of the samurai, Yamamoto Tsunetomo encapsulates his views on 'virtue' in the four vows he makes daily:
1. Never to be outdone in the way of the samurai or Bushid.

2. To be of good use to the master. 3. To be filial to my parents. 4. To manifest great compassion and act for the sake of Man. Tsunetomo goes on to say: If one dedicates these four vows to the gods and Buddhas every morning, he will have the strength of two men and never slip backward. One must edge forward like the inchworm, bit by bit. The gods and Buddhas, too, first started with a vow. The Bushid code is typified by seven virtues^ :

Rectitude ( ,gi) Courage ( ,yuu) Benevolence ( ,jin) Respect ( ,rei) Honesty ( ,sei) Honor ( ,yo) Loyalty ( ,chuu)

Others that are sometimes added to these:

Filial piety ( ,k) Wisdom ( ,chi) Care for the aged ( ,tei)

[edit] View of Nietzsche

Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche often took a more cynical view on virtue. A few of his key thoughts were as follows:

"One virtue is more of a virtue than two, because it is more of a knot for one's destiny to cling to."[citation needed] "Virtue itself is offensive."[citation needed] "When virtue has slept, it will arise all the more vigorous."[citation needed] "Genuine honesty, assuming that this is our virtue and we cannot get rid of it, we free spirits well then, we will want to work on it with all the love and malice at our disposal and not get tired of perfecting ourselves in our virtue, the only one we have left: may its glory come to rest like a gilded, blue evening glow of mockery over this aging culture and its dull and dismal seriousness!" (Beyond Good and Evil, 227)

[edit] Virtues according to Benjamin Franklin

These are the virtues[13] that Benjamin Franklin used to develop what he called 'moral perfection'. He had a checklist in a notebook to measure each day how he lived up to his virtues. They became known through Benjamin Franklin's autobiography and inspired many people all around the world. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Temperance: Eat not to Dullness. Drink not to Elevation. Silence: Speak not but what may benefit others or yourself. Avoid trifling Conversation. Order: Let all your Things have their Places. Let each Part of your Business have its Time. Resolution: Resolve to perform what you ought. Perform without fail what you resolve. Frugality: Make no Expense but to do good to others or yourself; i.e. Waste nothing. Industry: Lose no Time. Be always employed in something useful. Cut off all unnecessary Actions. 7. Sincerity: Use no hurtful Deceit. Think innocently and justly; and, if you speak, speak accordingly. 8. Justice: Wrong none, by doing Injuries or omitting the Benefits that are your Duty. 9. Moderation: Avoid Extremes. Forbear resenting Injuries so much as you think they deserve. 10. Cleanliness: Tolerate no Uncleanness in Body, Clothes or Habitation. 11. Tranquility: Be not disturbed at Trifles, or at Accidents common or unavoidable. 12. Chastity: Rarely use Venery but for Health or Offspring; Never to Dullness, Weakness, or the Injury of your own or another's Peace or Reputation.

13. Humility: Imitate Jesus and Socrates.

[edit] In Objectivism
Ayn Rand held that her morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence existsand in a single choice: to live. That the rest proceeds from these. That to live, man must hold three fundamental values that one develops and achieves in life: Reason,[14] Purpose and SelfEsteem. A value is "that which one acts to gain and/or keep ... and the virtue[s] [are] the act[ions] by which one gains and/or keeps it." The primary virtue in Objectivist ethics is rationality, as Rand meant it "the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge, one's only judge of values and one's only guide to action."[15] These values are achieved by passionate and consistent action and the virtues are the policies for achieving those fundamental values.[16] Ayn Rand describes seven virtues: rationality, productiveness, pride, independence, integrity, honesty and justice. The first three represent the three primary virtues that correspond to the three fundamental values, whereas the final four are derived from the virtue of rationality. She claims that virtue is not an end in itself, that virtue is not its own reward or sacrificial fodder for the reward of evil, that life is the reward of virtueand happiness is the goal and the reward of life. Man has a single basic choice: to think or not, and that is the gauge of his virtue. Moral perfection is an unbreached rationalitynot the degree of your intelligence, but the full and relentless use of your mind, not the extent of your knowledge, but the acceptance of reason as an absolute.[17]

[edit] Vice as opposite

This section does not cite any references or sources.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2010)

Main article: Vice The opposite of a virtue is a vice. One way of organizing the vices is as the corruption of the virtues. As Aristotle noted, however, the virtues can have several opposites. Virtues can be considered the mean between two extremes, as the Latin maxim dictates in medio stat virtus - in the centre lies virtue. For instance, both cowardice and rashness are opposites of courage; contrary to prudence are both over-caution and insufficient caution. A more "modern" virtue, tolerance, can be considered the mean between the two extremes of narrow-mindedness on the one hand and overacceptance on the other. Vices can therefore be identified as the opposites of virtues - but with the caveat that each virtue could have many different opposites, all distinct from each other.

[edit] In modern psychology

Christopher Peterson and Martin Seligman, two leading researchers in positive psychology, recognizing the deficiency inherent in psychology's tendency to focus on dysfunction rather than on what makes a healthy and stable personality, set out to develop a list of "Character Strengths and Virtues"[18] After three years of study, 24 traits (classified into six broad areas of virtue) were

identified, having "a surprising amount of similarity across cultures and strongly indicat[ing] a historical and cross-cultural convergence."[19] These six categories of virtue are courage, justice, humanity, temperance, transcendence, and wisdom.[20] It is also worth noting that some psychologists suggest that these virtues are adequately grouped into fewer categories; for example, the same 24 traits have been grouped into simply: Cognitive Strengths, Temperance Strengths, and Social Strengths.[21] Free will is the putative ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints. Historically, the constraint of dominant concern has been the metaphysical constraint of determinism. The opposing positions within that debate are metaphysical libertarianism, the claim that determinism is false and thus that free will exists (or is at least possible); and hard determinism, the claim that determinism is true and thus that free will does not exist. Both of these positions, which agree that causal determination is the relevant factor in the question of free will, are classed as incompatibilists. Those who deny that determinism is relevant are classified as compatibilists, and offer various alternative explanations of what constraints are relevant, such as physical constraints (e.g. chains or imprisonment), social constraints (e.g. threat of punishment or censure), or psychological constraints (e.g. compulsions or phobias). The principle of free will has religious, ethical, and scientific implications. For example, in the religious realm, free will implies that individual will and choices can coexist with an omnipotent divinity. In ethics, it may hold implications regarding whether individuals can be held morally accountable for their actions. The question of free will has been a central issue since the beginning of philosophical thought.

Contents
[hide]

1 In western philosophy o 1.1 Incompatibilism 1.1.1 Metaphysical libertarianism 1.1.2 Free will as a mix of chance and determination o 1.2 Compatibilism 1.2.1 Free will as lack of physical restraint 1.2.2 Free will as sociopolitical liberty 1.2.3 Free will as a psychological state 1.2.4 Free will as unpredictability 1.2.5 Free will as a pragmatically useful concept o 1.3 Other views 2 In science o 2.1 Physics o 2.2 Genetics o 2.3 Neuroscience o 2.4 Neurology and psychiatry o 2.5 Determinism and emergent behaviour

o 2.6 Experimental psychology 3 In Eastern philosophy o 3.1 In Hindu philosophy o 3.2 In Buddhist philosophy o 3.3 In Kashmir Shaivism 4 In other theology 5 See also 6 References 7 Further reading

8 External links

[edit] In western philosophy

A simplified taxonomy of the most important philosophical positions regarding free will.

[edit] Incompatibilism
Main article: Incompatibilism

Baron d'Holbach was a hard determinist.

Incompatibilism is the position that free will and determinism are logically incompatible, and that the major question regarding whether or not people have free will is thus whether or not their actions are determined. "Hard determinists", such as Martin Luther and d'Holbach, are those incompatibilists who accept determinism and reject free will. "Metaphysical libertarians", such as Thomas Reid, Peter van Inwagen, and Robert Kane, are those incompatibilists who accept free will and deny determinism, holding the view that some form of indeterminism is true.[1] Another view is that of hard incompatibilism, which states that free will is incompatible with both determinism and indeterminism. This view is defended by Derk Pereboom.[2] Determinism is a broad term with a variety of meanings. Corresponding to each of these different meanings, there arises a different problem of free will.[3]

Causal determinism states that future events are necessitated by past and present events combined with the laws of nature. Such determinism is sometimes illustrated by the thought experiment of Laplace's demon. Imagine an entity that knows all facts about the past and the present, and knows all natural laws that govern the universe. If the laws of nature were determinate, then such an entity would be able to use this knowledge to foresee the future, down to the smallest detail.[4] Logical determinism is the notion that all propositions, whether about the past, present or future, are either true or false. The problem of free will, in this context, is the problem of how choices can be free, given that what one does in the future is already determined as true or false in the present.[3] Theological determinism is the idea that there is a god who determines all that humans will do, either by knowing their actions in advance, via some form of omniscience[5] or by decreeing their actions in advance.[6] The problem of free will, in this context, is the problem of how our actions can be free if there is a being who has determined them for us in advance. Biological determinism is the idea that all behaviors, beliefs, and desires are fixed by our genetic endowment and our biochemical makeup, the latter of which is affected by both genes and environment. Other forms of determinism include: cultural determinism and psychological determinism.[3] Combinations and syntheses of determinist theses, e.g. bio-environmental determinism, are even more common.

Traditional arguments for incompatibilism are based on an "intuition pump": if a person is like other mechanical things that are determined in their behavior such as a wind-up toy, a billiard ball, a puppet, or a robot, then people must not have free will.[1][7] This argument has been rejected by compatibilists such as Daniel Dennett on the grounds that, even if humans have something in common with these things, it remains possible and plausible that we are different from such objects in important ways.[8] Another argument for incompatibilism is that of the "causal chain." Incompatibilism is key to the idealist theory of free will. Most incompatibilists reject the idea that freedom of action consists simply in "voluntary" behavior. They insist, rather, that free will means that man must be the "ultimate" or "originating" cause of his actions. He must be a causa sui, in the traditional phrase. To be responsible for one's choices is to be the first cause of those choices, where first cause means

that there is no antecedent cause of that cause. The argument, then, is that if man has free will, then man is the ultimate cause of his actions. If determinism is true, then all of man's choices are caused by events and facts outside his control. So, if everything man does is caused by events and facts outside his control, then he cannot be the ultimate cause of his actions. Therefore, he cannot have free will.[9][10][11] This argument has also been challenged by various compatibilist philosophers.[12]
[13]

A third argument for incompatibilism was formulated by Carl Ginet in the 1960s and has received much attention in the modern literature. The simplified argument runs along these lines: if determinism is true, then we have no control over the events of the past that determined our present state and no control over the laws of nature. Since we can have no control over these matters, we also can have no control over the consequences of them. Since our present choices and acts, under determinism, are the necessary consequences of the past and the laws of nature, then we have no control over them and, hence, no free will. This is called the consequence argument.[14][15] Peter van Inwagen remarks that C.D. Broad had a version of the consequence argument as early as the 1930s.
[16]

The difficulty of this argument for compatibilists lies in the fact that it entails the impossibility that one could have chosen other than one has. For example, if Jane is a compatibilist and she has just sat down on the sofa, then she is committed to the claim that she could have remained standing, if she had so desired. But it follows from the consequence argument that, if Jane had remained standing, she would have either generated a contradiction, violated the laws of nature or changed the past. Hence, compatibilists are committed to the existence of "incredible abilities", according to Ginet and van Inwagen. One response to this argument is that it equivocates on the notions of abilities and necessities, or that the free will evoked to make any given choice is really an illusion and the choice had been made all along, oblivious to its "decider".[15] David Lewis suggests that compatibilists are only committed to the ability to do something otherwise if different circumstances had actually obtained in the past.[17] [edit] Metaphysical libertarianism Main article: Libertarianism (metaphysics)

Various definitions of free will that have been proposed, for both Compatibilism,[18] and Incompatibilism (Hard Determinism,[19] Hard Incompatibilism,[2] Libertarianism Traditional,[20] and Libertarianism Volition[21]). Metaphysical libertarianism is one philosophical view point under that of incompatiblism. Libertarianism holds onto a concept of free will that requires the individual to be able to take more than one possible course of action under a given set of circumstances. Accounts of libertarianism subdivide into non-physical theories and physical or naturalistic theories. Non-physical theories hold that a non-physical mind overrides physical causality, so that physical events in the brain that lead to the performance of actions do not have an entirely physical explanation. This approach is allied to mind-body dualism in philosophy. According to this view, the world is not believed to be closed under Physics. An extra-physical will is believed to play a part in the decision making process. According to a somewhat related theological explanation, an independent soul is said to make decisions and override physical causality. Explanations of libertarianism which do not involve dispensing with physicalism require physical indeterminism, such as probabilistic sub atomic particle behavior - theory unknown to many of the early writers on free will. Physical determinism, under the assumption of physicalism, implies there is only one possible future and is therefore not compatible with libertarian free will. Some libertarian explanations involve invoking panpsychism, the theory that a quality of mind is associated with all particles, and pervades the entire universe, in both animate and inanimate entities. Other approaches do not require free will to be a fundamental constituent of the universe; ordinary randomness is appealed to as supplying the "elbow room" believed to be necessary by libertarians.

Free volition is regarded as a particular kind of complex, high-level process with an element of indeterminism. An example of this kind of approach has been developed by Robert Kane,[21] where he hypothesises that, "In each case, the indeterminism is functioning as a hindrance or obstacle to her realizing one of her purposes - a hindrance or obstacle in the form of resistance within her will which has to be overcome by effort". Although at the time C. S. Lewis wrote Miracles,[22] Quantum Mechanics (and physical indeterminism) was only in the initial stages of acceptance, he stated the logical possibility that if the physical world was proved to be indeterministic this would provide an entry (interaction) point into the traditionally viewed closed system, where a scientifically described physically probable/improbable event could be philosophically described as an action of a non-physical entity on physical reality. [edit] Free will as a mix of chance and determination In 1884 William James described a two-stage model of free will: in the first stage the mind develops random alternative possibilities for action, and in the second an adequately determined will selects one option. A number of other thinkers have since refined this idea, including Henri Poincar, Arthur Holly Compton, Karl Popper, Henry Margenau, Daniel Dennett, Robert Kane, Alfred Mele, and Martin Heisenberg. Each of these models tries to reconcile libertarian free will with the existence of irreducible chance (today in the form of quantum indeterminacy), which threatens to make an agent's decision random, thus denying the control needed for responsibility. If a single event is caused by chance, then logically indeterminism would be "true." For centuries, philosophers have said this would undermine the very possibility of certain knowledge. Some go to the extreme of saying that real chance would make the whole state of the world totally independent of any earlier states. The Stoic Chrysippus said that a single uncaused cause could destroy the universe (cosmos), "Everything that happens is followed by something else which depends on it by causal necessity. Likewise, everything that happens is preceded by something with which it is causally connected. For nothing exists or has come into being in the cosmos without a cause. The universe will be disrupted and disintegrate into pieces and cease to be a unity functioning as a single system, if any uncaused movement is introduced into it." James said most philosophers have an "antipathy to chance."[23] His contemporary John Fiske described the absurd decisions that would be made if chance were real, "If volitions arise without cause, it necessarily follows that we cannot infer from them the character of the antecedent states of feeling. .. . The mother may strangle her first-born child, the miser may cast his long-treasured gold into the sea, the sculptor may break in pieces his lately-finished statue,

in the presence of no other feelings than those which before led them to cherish, to hoard, and to create."[24] In modern times, J. J. C. Smart has described the problem of admitting indeterminism, "Indeterminism does not confer freedom on us: I would feel that my freedom was impaired if I thought that a quantum mechanical trigger in my brain might cause me to leap into the garden and eat a slug."[25] The challenge for two-stage models is to admit some indeterminism but not permit it to produce random actions, as determinists fear. And of course a model must limit determinism but not eliminate it as some libertarians think necessary. Two-stage models limit the contribution of random chance to the generation of alternative possibilities for action. But note that, in recent years, compatibilist analytic philosophers following Harry Frankfurt have denied the existence of alternative possibilities. They develop "Frankfurttype examples" (thought experiments) in which they argue an agent is free even though no alternative possibilities exist, or the agent is prevented at the last moment by neuroscientific demons from "doing otherwise."[26]

[edit] Compatibilism
Main article: Compatibilism

Thomas Hobbes was a classical compatibilist. Compatibilists maintain that determinism is compatible with free will. To illustrate their standpoint, compatibilists point to cases of someone's free will being denied, through rape, murder, theft, or other examples of ones own will being forced upon another. In these cases, free will is lacking not because the past is determining the future, but because the aggressor is choosing, through their own actions the victim's desires. Compatibilists' arguments are that determinism does not matter; what matters is that an individuals' will are the results of their own desires and are not overridden by some external force.[18][27] To be a compatibilist, one need not endorse any particular conception of free will, but only deny that determinism is at odds with free will.[28]

[edit] Free will as lack of physical restraint Most "classical compatibilists", such as Thomas Hobbes, claim that a person acts on their own only when the person wanted to do the act and the person could have done otherwise, if the person had decided to. Hobbes sometimes attributes such compatibilist freedom to the each individual and not to some abstract notion of will, asserting, for example, that "no liberty can be inferred to the will, desire, or inclination, but the liberty of the man; which consisteth in this, that he finds no stop, in doing what he has the will, desire, or inclination to do."[27] In articulating this crucial proviso, David Hume writes, "this hypothetical liberty is universally allowed to belong to every one who is not a prisoner and in chains".[18] [edit] Free will as sociopolitical liberty Another type of compatibilist might equate "free will" with what other philosophers call liberty. This can include some or all of the freedoms of negative liberty and positive liberty.[citation needed] [edit] Free will as a psychological state "Modern compatibilists", such as Harry Frankfurt and Daniel Dennett, argue that there are cases where a coerced agent's choices are still free because such coercion coincides with the agent's personal intentions and desires.[8][29] Frankfurt, in particular, argues for a version of compatibilism called the "hierarchical mesh". The idea is that an individual can have conflicting desires at a firstorder level and also have a desire about the various first-order desires (a second-order desire) to the effect that one of the desires prevails over the others. A person's will is to be identified with their effective first-order desire, i.e., the one that they act on. So, for example, there are "wanton addicts", "unwilling addicts" and "willing addicts." All three groups may have the conflicting firstorder desires to want to take the drug to which they are addicted and to not want to take it. The first group, "wanton addicts", have no second-order desire not to take the drug. The second group, "unwilling addicts", have a second-order desire not to take the drug, while the third group, "willing addicts", have a second-order desire to take it. According to Frankfurt, the members of the first group are to be considered devoid of will and therefore no longer persons. The members of the second group freely desire not to take the drug, but their will is overcome by the addiction. Finally, the members of the third group willingly take the drug to which they are addicted. Frankfurt's theory can ramify to any number of levels. Critics of the theory point out that there is no certainty that conflicts will not arise even at the higher-order levels of desire and preference.[30] Others argue that Frankfurt offers no adequate explanation of how the various levels in the hierarchy mesh together.[31] [edit] Free will as unpredictability In Elbow Room, Dennett presents an argument for a compatibilist theory of free will, which he further elaborated in the book Freedom Evolves.[32] The basic reasoning is that, if one excludes God, an infinitely powerful demon, and other such possibilities, then because of chaos and epistemic limits on the precision of our knowledge of the current state of the world, the future is ill-defined for all finite beings. The only well-defined things are "expectations". The ability to do

"otherwise" only makes sense when dealing with these expectations, and not with some unknown and unknowable future. According to Dennett, because individuals have the ability to act differently from what anyone expects, free will can exist.[32] Incompatibilists claim the problem with this idea is that we may be mere "automata responding in predictable ways to stimuli in our environment". Therefore, all of our actions are controlled by forces outside ourselves, or by random chance.[33] More sophisticated analyses of compatibilist free will have been offered, as have other critiques.[28] In the philosophy of decision theory, a fundamental question is: From the standpoint of statistical outcomes, to what extent do the choices of a conscious being have the ability to influence the future? Newcomb's paradox and other philosophical problems pose questions about free will and predictable outcomes of choices. [edit] Free will as a pragmatically useful concept William James' views were ambivalent. While he believed in free will on "ethical grounds," he did not believe that there was evidence for it on scientific grounds, nor did his own introspections support it.[34] Moreover, he did not accept incompatibilism as formulated below; he did not believe that the indeterminism of human actions was a prerequisite of moral responsibility. In his work Pragmatism, he wrote that "instinct and utility between them can safely be trusted to carry on the social business of punishment and praise" regardless of metaphysical theories.[35] He did believe that indeterminism is important as a "doctrine of relief"it allows for the view that, although the world may be in many respects a bad place, it may, through individuals' actions, become a better one. Determinism, he argued, undermines meliorismthe idea that progress is a real concept leading to improvement in the world.[35]

[edit] Other views

Much of Arthur Schopenhauer's writing is focused on the notion of will and its relation to freedom.

Some philosophers' views are difficult to categorize as either compatibilist or incompatibilist, hard determinist or libertarian. John Locke, for example, denied that the phrase "free will" made any sense (compare with theological noncognitivism, a similar stance on the existence of God). He also took the view that the truth of determinism was irrelevant. He believed that the defining feature of voluntary behavior was that individuals have the ability to postpone a decision long enough to reflect or deliberate upon the consequences of a choice: "...the will in truth, signifies nothing but a power, or ability, to prefer or choose".[36] Similarly, David Hume discussed the possibility that the entire debate about free will is nothing more than a merely "verbal" issue. He also suggested that it might be accounted for by "a false sensation or seeming experience" (a velleity), which is associated with many of our actions when we perform them. On reflection, we realize that they were necessary and determined all along.[37] Arthur Schopenhauer put the puzzle of free will and moral responsibility in these terms: Everyone believes himself a priori to be perfectly free, even in his individual actions, and thinks that at every moment he can commence another manner of life. ... But a posteriori, through experience, he finds to his astonishment that he is not free, but subjected to necessity, that in spite of all his resolutions and reflections he does not change his conduct, and that from the beginning of his life to the end of it, he must carry out the very character which he himself condemns...[38] In his On the Freedom of the Will, Schopenhauer stated, "You can do what you will, but in any given moment of your life you can will only one definite thing and absolutely nothing other than that one thing."[39] Rudolf Steiner, who collaborated in a complete edition of Arthur Schopenhauer's work,[40] wrote The Philosophy of Freedom, which focuses on the problem of free will. Steiner (18611925) initially divides this into the two aspects of freedom: freedom of thought and freedom of action. He argues that inner freedom is achieved when we bridge the gap between our sensory impressions, which reflect the outer appearance of the world, and our thoughts, which give us access to the inner nature of the world. Acknowledging the many influences on our choice, he points to the impact of our becoming aware of just these determinants. Outer freedom is attained by permeating our deeds with moral imagination. Steiner aims to show that these two aspects of inner and outer freedom are integral to one another, and that true freedom is only achieved when they are united.[41] The contemporary philosopher Galen Strawson agrees with Locke that the truth or falsity of determinism is irrelevant to the problem.[42] He argues that the notion of free will leads to an infinite regress and is therefore senseless. According to Strawson, if one is responsible for what one does in a given situation, then one must be responsible for the way one is in certain mental respects. But it is impossible for one to be responsible for the way one is in any respect. This is because to be responsible in some situation "S", one must have been responsible for the way one was at "S-1". To be responsible for the way one was at "S-1", one must have been responsible for the way one was at "S-2", and so on. At some point in the chain, there must have been an act of origination of a new causal chain. But this is impossible. Man cannot create himself or his mental states ex nihilo. This argument entails that free will itself is absurd, but not that it is incompatible with determinism. Strawson calls his own view "pessimism" but it can be classified as hard incompatibilism.[42]

Ted Honderich holds the view that "determinism is true, compatibilism and incompatibilism are both false" and the real problem lies elsewhere. Honderich maintains that determinism is true because quantum phenomena are not events or things that can be located in space and time, but are abstract entities. Further, even if they were micro-level events, they do not seem to have any relevance to how the world is at the macroscopic level. He maintains that incompatibilism is false because, even if determinism is true, incompatibilists have not, and cannot, provide an adequate account of origination. He rejects compatibilism because it, like incompatibilism, assumes a single, fundamental notion of freedom. There are really two notions of freedom: voluntary action and origination. Both notions are required to explain freedom of will and responsibility. Both determinism and indeterminism are threats to such freedom. To abandon these notions of freedom would be to abandon moral responsibility. On the one side, we have our intuitions; on the other, the scientific facts. The "new" problem is how to resolve this conflict.[43]

[edit] In science
[edit] Physics
Early scientific thought often portrayed the universe as deterministic,[44] and some thinkers claimed that the simple process of gathering sufficient information would allow them to predict future events with perfect accuracy. Modern science, on the other hand, is a mixture of deterministic and stochastic theories.[45] Quantum mechanics predicts events only in terms of probabilities, casting doubt on whether the universe is deterministic at all. Current physical theories cannot resolve the question of whether determinism is true of the world, being very far from a potential Theory of Everything, and open to many different interpretations.[46][47] Assuming that an indeterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct, one may still object that such indeterminism is for all practical purposes confined to microscopic phenomena.[48] However, many macroscopic phenomena are based on quantum effects, for instance, some hardware random number generators work by amplifying quantum effects into practically usable signals. A more significant question is whether the indeterminism of quantum mechanics allows for the traditional idea of free will (based on a perception of free willsee Experimental Psychology below for distinction). Under the assumption of physicalism it has been argued that the laws of quantum mechanics provide a complete probabilistic account of the motion of particles regardless of whether or not free will exists.[49] And also that if an action is taken due to quantum randomness, this in itself would mean that traditional free will is absent, since such action cannot be controllable by a physical being claiming to possess such free will.[50] Following this argument, traditional free will would only be possible under the assumption of compatibilism; in a deterministic universe, or in an indeterministic universe where the human body is for all intents and neurological purposes deterministic. An alternative approach is to see free will as a consequence of a combination of specific deterministic and indeterministic processes, not as a fundamental alternative to both determinism and indeterminism. The requirement for some level of indeterminism makes such theories

incompatibilistic. Robert Kane has capitalized on the success of quantum mechanics and chaos theory to defend incompatibilist freedom in his The Significance of Free Will and other writings.[51]

[edit] Genetics
Like physicists, biologists have frequently addressed questions related to free will. One of the most heated debates in biology is that of "nature versus nurture", concerning the relative importance of genetics and biology as compared to culture and environment in human behavior.[52] The view of most researchers is that many human behaviors can be explained in terms of humans' brains, genes, and evolutionary histories.[53][54][55] This point of view raises the fear that such attribution makes it impossible to hold others responsible for their actions. Steven Pinker's view is that fear of determinism in the context of "genetics" and "evolution" is a mistake, that it is "a confusion of explanation with exculpation". Responsibility doesn't require behavior to be uncaused, as long as behaviour responds to praise and blame.[56] Moreover, it is not certain that environmental determination is any less threatening to free will than genetic determination.[57]

[edit] Neuroscience
Main article: Neuroscience of free will It has become possible to study the living brain, and researchers can now watch the brain's decision-making process at work. A seminal experiment in this field was conducted by Benjamin Libet in the 1980s, in which he asked each subject to choose a random moment to flick her wrist while he measured the associated activity in her brain (in particular, the build-up of electrical signal called the readiness potential). Although it was well known that the readiness potential caused and preceded the physical action, Libet asked whether it could be recorded before the conscious intention to move. To determine when subjects felt the intention to move, he asked them to watch the second hand of a clock. After making a movement, the volunteer reported the time on the clock when they first felt the conscious intention to move; this became known as Libet's W time.[58] Libet found that the unconscious brain activity of the readiness potential leading up to subjects' movements began approximately half a second before the subject was aware of a conscious intention to move.[58][59] More studies have since been conducted, including some that try to:

support Libet's original findings suggest that the cancelling or "veto" of an action may first arise subconsciously as well explain the underlying brain structures involved suggest models that explain the relationship between conscious intention and action

[edit] Neurology and psychiatry

There are several brain-related conditions in which an individual's actions are not felt to be entirely under his or her control. Although the existence of such conditions does not directly refute the

existence of free will, the study of such conditions, like the neuroscientific studies above, is valuable in developing models of how the brain may construct our experience of free will. For example, people with Tourette syndrome and related tic disorders make involuntary movements and utterances, called tics, despite the fact that they would prefer not to do so when it is socially inappropriate. Tics are described as semi-voluntary or "unvoluntary",[60] because they are not strictly involuntary: they may be experienced as a voluntary response to an unwanted, premonitory urge. Tics are experienced as irresistible and must eventually be expressed.[60] People with Tourette syndrome are sometimes able to suppress their tics for limited periods, but doing so often results in an explosion of tics afterward. The control exerted (from seconds to hours at a time) may merely postpone and exacerbate the ultimate expression of the tic.[61] In alien hand syndrome, the afflicted individual's limb will produce meaningful behaviours without the intention of the subject. The affected limb effectively demonstrates 'a will of its own.' The sense of agency does not emerge in conjunction with the overt appearance of the purposeful act even though the sense of ownership in relationship to the body part is maintained. This phenomenon corresponds with an impairment in the premotor mechanism manifested temporally by the appearance of the Bereitschaftspotential (see section on the Neuroscience of Free Will above) recordable on the scalp several hundred milliseconds before the overt appearance of a spontaneous willed movement. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging with specialized multivariate analyses to study the temporal dimension in the activation of the cortical network associated with voluntary movement in human subjects, an anterior-to-posterior sequential activation process beginning in the supplementary motor area on the medial surface of the frontal lobe and progressing to the primary motor cortex and then to parietal cortex has been observed.[62] The sense of agency thus appears to normally emerge in conjunction with this orderly sequential network activation incorporating premotor association cortices together with primary motor cortex. In particular, the supplementary motor complex on the medial surface of the frontal lobe appears to activate prior to primary motor cortex presumably in associated with a preparatory pre-movement process. In a recent study using functional magnetic resonance imaging, alien movements were characterized by a relatively isolated activation of the primary motor cortex contralateral to the alien hand, while voluntary movements of the same body part included the concomitant activation of motor association cortex associated with the premotor process.[63] The clinical definition requires "feeling that one limb is foreign or has a will of its own, together with observable involuntary motor activity" (emphasis in original).[64] This syndrome is often a result of damage to the corpus callosum, either when it is severed to treat intractable epilepsy or due to a stroke. The standard neurological explanation is that the felt will reported by the speaking left hemisphere does not correspond with the actions performed by the non-speaking right hemisphere, thus suggesting that the two hemispheres may have independent senses of will.[65][66] Similarly, one of the most important ("first rank") diagnostic symptoms of schizophrenia is the delusion of being controlled by an external force.[67] People with schizophrenia will sometimes report that, although they are acting in the world, they did not initiate, or will, the particular actions they performed. This is sometimes likened to being a robot controlled by someone else. Although the neural mechanisms of schizophrenia are not yet clear, one influential hypothesis is that there is a breakdown in brain systems that compare motor commands with the feedback received from the body (known as proprioception), leading to attendant hallucinations and delusions of control.[68]

[edit] Determinism and emergent behaviour

Main article: Emergence In some generative philosophies of cognitive sciences and evolutionary psychology, free will is assumed not to exist.[69][70] However, an illusion of free will is created, within this theoretical context, due to the generation of infinite or computationally complex behaviour from the interaction of a finite set of rules and parameters. Thus, the unpredictability of the emerging behaviour from deterministic processes leads to a perception of free will, even though free will as an ontological entity is assumed not to exist.[69][70] In this picture, even if the behavior could be computed ahead of time, no way of doing so will be simpler than just observing the outcome of the brain's own computations.[71] As an illustration, some strategy board games have rigorous rules in which no information (such as cards' face values) is hidden from either player and no random events (such as dice rolling) occur in the game. Nevertheless, strategy games like chess and especially Go, with its simple deterministic rules, can have an extremely large number of unpredictable moves. By analogy, "emergentists" suggest that the experience of free will emerges from the interaction of finite rules and deterministic parameters that generate infinite and unpredictable behaviour. Yet, if all these events were accounted for, and there were a known way to evaluate these events, the seemingly unpredictable behavior would become predictable.[69][70][72] Cellular automata and the generative sciences can model emergent processes of social behavior on this philosophy.[69]

[edit] Experimental psychology

Experimental psychology's contributions to the free will debate have come primarily through social psychologist Daniel Wegner's work on conscious will. In his book, The Illusion of Conscious Will[73] Wegner summarizes empirical evidence supporting the view that human perception of conscious control is an illusion. Wegner observes that one event is inferred to have caused a second event when two requirements are met: 1. The first event immediately precedes the second event, and 2. The first event is consistent with having caused the second event. For example, if a person hears an explosion and sees a tree fall down that person is likely to infer that the explosion caused the tree to fall over. However, if the explosion occurs after the tree falls down (i.e., the first requirement is not met), or rather than an explosion, the person hears the ring of a telephone (i.e., the second requirement is not met), then that person is not likely to infer that either noise caused the tree to fall down. Wegner has applied this principle to the inferences people make about their own conscious will. People typically experience a thought that is consistent with a behavior, and then they observe themselves performing this behavior. As a result, people infer that their thoughts must have caused the observed behavior. However, Wegner has been able to manipulate people's thoughts and behaviors so as to conform to or violate the two requirements for causal inference.[73][74] Through such work, Wegner has been able to show that people will often experience conscious will over

behaviors that they have in fact not caused, and conversely, that people can be led to experience a lack of will over behaviors that they did cause. For instance, priming subjects with information about an effect increases the probability that a person falsely believes to be the cause of it.[75] The implication for such work is that the perception of conscious will (which he says might be more accurately labelled as 'the emotion of authorship') is not tethered to the execution of actual behaviors, but is inferred from various cues through an intricate mental process, authorship processing. Although many interpret this work as a blow against the argument for free will, Wegner has asserted[citation needed] that his work informs only of the mechanism for perceptions of control, not for control itself. Emily Pronin has argued that the subjective experience of free will is supported by the introspection illusion. This is the tendency for people to trust the reliability of their own introspections while distrusting the introspections of other people. The theory implies that people will more readily attribute free will to themselves rather than others. This prediction has been confirmed by three of Pronin and Kugler's experiments. When college students were asked about personal decisions in their own and their roommate's lives, they regarded their own choices as less predictable. Staff at a restaurant described their co-workers' lives as more determined (having fewer future possibilities) than their own lives. When weighing up the influence of different factors on behaviour, students gave desires and intentions the strongest weight for their own behavior, but rated personality traits as most predictive of other people.[76] Psychologists have shown that reducing a person's belief in free will makes them less helpful and more aggressive.[77]

[edit] In Eastern philosophy

[edit] In Hindu philosophy
The six orthodox (astika) schools of thought in Hindu philosophy do not agree with each other entirely on the question of free will. For the Samkhya, for instance, matter is without any freedom, and soul lacks any ability to control the unfolding of matter. The only real freedom (kaivalya) consists in realizing the ultimate separateness of matter and self.[78] For the Yoga school, only Ishvara is truly free, and its freedom is also distinct from all feelings, thoughts, actions, or wills, and is thus not at all a freedom of will. The metaphysics of the Nyaya and Vaisheshika schools strongly suggest a belief in determinism, but do not seem to make explicit claims about determinism or free will.[79] A quotation from Swami Vivekananda, a Vedantist, offers a good example of the worry about free will in the Hindu tradition. Therefore we see at once that there cannot be any such thing as free-will; the very words are a contradiction, because will is what we know, and everything that we know is within our universe, and everything within our universe is moulded by conditions of time, space and causality. ... To acquire freedom we have to get beyond the limitations of this universe; it cannot be found here.[80]

However, the preceding quote has often been misinterpreted as Vivekananda implying that everything is predetermined. What Vivekananda actually meant by lack of free will was that the will was not "free" because it was heavily influenced by the law of cause and effect"The will is not free, it is a phenomenon bound by cause and effect, but there is something behind the will which is free."[80] Vivekananda never said things were absolutely determined and placed emphasis on the power of conscious choice to alter one's past karma: "It is the coward and the fool who says this is his fate. But it is the strong man who stands up and says I will make my own fate."[80] Similarly, Vivekananda's teacher Ramakrishna Paramahansa, using an analogy said that man is like a cow tied to a pole with a ropethe karmic debts and human nature bind him and the amount of free will he has is analogous to the amount of freedom the rope allows; as one progresses spiritually, the rope becomes longer. Mimamsa, Vedanta, and the more theistic versions of Hinduism such as Shaivism and Vaishnavism, have often emphasized the importance of free will. The doctrine of karma requires both that we pay for our actions in the past, and that our actions in the present be free enough to allow us to deserve the future reward or punishment that we will receive for our present actions.

[edit] In Buddhist philosophy

Buddhism accepts both freedom and determinism (or something similar to it), but rejects the idea of an agent, and thus the idea that freedom is a free will belonging to an agent.[81] According to the Buddha, "There is free action, there is retribution, but I see no agent that passes out from one set of momentary elements into another one, except the [connection] of those elements."[81] Buddhists believe in neither absolute free will, nor determinism. It preaches a middle doctrine, named pratitya-samutpada in Sanskrit, which is often translated as "inter-dependent arising". It is part of the theory of karma in Buddhism. The concept of karma in Buddhism is different from the notion of karma in Hinduism. In Buddhism, the idea of karma is much less deterministic. The Buddhist notion of karma is primarily focused on the cause and effect of moral actions in this life, while in Hinduism the concept of karma is more often connected with determining one's destiny in future lives. In Buddhism it is taught that the idea of absolute freedom of choice (i.e. that any human being could be completely free to make any choice) is foolish, because it denies the reality of one's physical needs and circumstances. Equally incorrect is the idea that we have no choice in life or that our lives are pre-determined. To deny freedom would be to deny the efforts of Buddhists to make moral progress (through our capacity to freely choose compassionate action). Pubbekatahetuvada, the belief that all happiness and suffering arise from previous actions, is considered a wrong view according to Buddhist doctrines. Because Buddhists also reject agenthood, the traditional compatibilist strategies are closed to them as well. Instead, the Buddhist philosophical strategy is to examine the metaphysics of causality. Ancient India had many heated arguments about the nature of causality with Jains, Nyayists, Samkhyists, Crvkans, and Buddhists all taking slightly different lines. In many ways, the Buddhist position is closer to a theory of "conditionality" than a theory of "causality", especially as it is expounded by Nagarjuna in the Mlamadhyamakakrik.[81]

[edit] In Kashmir Shaivism

The concept of free will plays a central role in Kashmir Shaivism. Known under the technical name of svtantrya it is the cause of the creation of the universea primordial force that stirs up the absolute and manifests the world inside the supreme consciousness of iva. Svtantrya is the sole property of God, all the rest of conscious subjects being co-participant in various degrees to the divine sovereignty. Humans have a limited degree of free will based on their level of consciousness. Ultimately, Kashmir Shaivism as a monistic idealist philosophical system views all subjects to be identical - "all are one" - and that one is iva, the supreme consciousness. Thus, all subjects have free will but they can be ignorant of this power. Ignorance too is a force projected by svtantrya itself upon the creation and can only be removed by svtantrya. A function of svtantrya is that of granting divine grace - aktipt. In this philosophical system spiritual liberation is not accessible by mere effort, but dependent only on the will of God. Thus, the disciple can only surrender himself and wait for the divine grace to come down and eliminate the limitations that imprison his consciousness. Causality in Kashmir Shaivism is considered to be created by Svtantrya along with the universe. Thus there can be no contradiction, limitation or rule to force iva to act one way or the other. Svtantrya always exists beyond the limiting shield of cosmic illusion, my.

[edit] In other theology

Further information: Free will in theology The theological doctrine of divine foreknowledge is often alleged to be in conflict with free will, particularly in Reformed circles. For if God knows exactly what will happen, right down to every choice one makes, the status of choices as free is called into question. If God had timelessly true knowledge about one's choices, this would seem to constrain one's freedom.[82] This problem is related to the Aristotelian problem of the sea battle: tomorrow there will or will not be a sea battle. If there will be one, then it seems that it was true yesterday that there would be one. Then it would be necessary that the sea battle will occur. If there won't be one, then by similar reasoning, it is necessary that it won't occur.[83] This means that the future, whatever it is, is completely fixed by past truthstrue propositions about the future. However, some philosophers follow William of Ockham in holding that necessity and possibility are defined with respect to a given point in time and a given matrix of empirical circumstances, and so something that is merely possible from the perspective of one observer may be necessary from the perspective of an omniscient.[84] Some philosophers follow Philo of Alexandria, a philosopher known for his homocentrism, in holding that free will is a feature of a human's soul, and thus that non-human animals lack free will.[85] Jewish philosophy stresses that free will is a product of the intrinsic human soul, using the word neshama (from the Hebrew root n.sh.m. or . ..meaning "breath"), but the ability to make a free choice is through Yechida (from Hebrew word "yachid", ,singular), the part of the soul that is

united with God, the only being that is not hindered by or dependent on cause and effect (thus, freedom of will does not belong to the realm of the physical reality, and inability of natural philosophy to account for it is expected). In Islam the theological issue is not usually how to reconcile free will with God's foreknowledge, but with God's jabr, or divine commanding power. al-Ash'ari developed an "acquisition" or "dualagency" form of compatibilism, in which human free will and divine jabr were both asserted, and which became a cornerstone of the dominant Ash'ari position.[86] In Shia Islam, Ash'aris understanding of a higher balance toward predestination is challenged by most theologians.[87] Free will, according to Islamic doctrine is the main factor for man's accountability in his/her actions throughout life. All actions taken by man's free will are said to be counted on the Day of Judgement because they are his/her own and not God's. The philosopher Sren Kierkegaard claimed that divine omnipotence cannot be separated from divine goodness.[88] As a truly omnipotent and good being, God could create beings with true freedom over God. Furthermore, God would voluntarily do so because "the greatest good ... which can be done for a being, greater than anything else that one can do for it, is to be truly free."[89] Alvin Plantinga's "free will defense" is a contemporary expansion of this theme, adding how God, free will, and evil are consistent.[90] Suffering, or pain in a broad sense,[1] is an individual's basic affective experience of unpleasantness and aversion associated with harm or threat of harm. Suffering may be qualified as physical[2] or mental.[3] It may come in all degrees of intensity, from mild to intolerable. Factors of duration and frequency of occurrence usually compound that of intensity. In addition to such factors, people's attitudes toward suffering may take into account how much it is, in their opinion, avoidable or unavoidable, useful or useless, deserved or undeserved. Suffering occurs commonly in the lives of sentient beings, in diverse manners, and often dramatically. As a result, many fields of human activity are concerned, from their own points of view, with some aspects of suffering. These aspects may include the nature of suffering, its processes, its origin and causes, its meaning and significance, its related personal, social, and cultural behaviors, its remedies, management, and uses.

Contents
[hide]

1 Terminology 2 Philosophy 3 Religion 4 Arts and literature 5 Social sciences 6 Biology, neurology, psychology 7 Health care 8 Relief and prevention in society 9 Uses

10 See also 11 Selected bibliography 12 Notes and references

Terminology
The word suffering is sometimes used in the narrow sense of physical pain, but more often it refers to mental or emotional pain, or more often yet to pain in the broad sense, i.e. to any unpleasant feeling, emotion or sensation. The word pain usually refers to physical pain, but it is also a common synonym of suffering. The words pain and suffering are often used both together in different ways. For instance, they may be used as interchangeable synonyms. Or they may be used in 'contradistinction' to one another, as in "pain is physical, suffering is mental", or "pain is inevitable, suffering is optional". Or they may be used to define each other, as in "pain is physical suffering", or "suffering is severe physical or mental pain". Qualifiers, such as mental, emotional, psychological, and spiritual, are often used for referring to certain types of pain or suffering. In particular, mental pain (or suffering) may be used in relationship with physical pain (or suffering) for distinguishing between two wide categories of pain or suffering. A first caveat concerning such a distinction is that it uses physical pain in a sense that normally includes not only the 'typical sensory experience of physical pain' but also other unpleasant bodily experiences such as itching or nausea. A second caveat is that the terms physical or mental should not be taken too literally: physical pain or suffering, as a matter of fact, happens through conscious minds and involves emotional aspects, while mental pain or suffering happens through physical brains and, being an emotion, involves important physiological aspects. Unpleasantness is another synonym of suffering or pain in the broad sense. More technically, the term is used in physical pain science for referring to the basic affective dimension of pain (its suffering aspect per se), usually in contrast with the sensory dimension, as for instance in this sentence from Professor Donald Price: Pain-unpleasantness is often, though not always, closely linked to both the intensity and unique qualities of the painful sensation.[4] Words that are roughly synonymic with suffering, in addition to pain and unpleasantness, include distress, sorrow, unhappiness, misery, affliction, woe, ill, discomfort, displeasure, disagreeableness.

Philosophy
Hedonism, as an ethical theory, claims that good and bad consist ultimately in pleasure and pain. Many hedonists, in accordance with Epicurus, emphasize avoiding suffering over pursuing pleasure, because they find that the greatest happiness lies in a tranquil state (ataraxia) free from pain and from the worrisome pursuit or unwelcome consequences of pleasure. For Stoicism, the greatest good lies in reason and virtue, but the soul best reaches it through a kind of indifference (apatheia) to pleasure and pain: as a consequence, this doctrine has become identified with stern self-control in regard to suffering.
Part of a series on

Utilitarianism
Predecessors[show] People[show] Types of utilitarianism[show] Key concepts[show] Problems[show] Related topics[show]

Politics portal

vde

Jeremy Bentham developed hedonistic utilitarianism, a popular doctrine in ethics, politics, and economics. Bentham argued that the right act or policy was that which would cause "the greatest happiness of the greatest number". He suggested a procedure called hedonic or felicific calculus, for determining how much pleasure and pain would result from any action. John Stuart Mill improved and promoted the doctrine of hedonistic utilitarianism. Karl Popper, in The Open Society and Its Enemies, proposed a negative utilitarianism, which prioritizes the reduction of suffering over the enhancement of happiness when speaking of utility: "I believe that there is, from the ethical point of view, no symmetry between suffering and happiness, or between pain and pleasure. () human suffering makes a direct moral appeal for help, while there is no similar call to increase the happiness of a man who is doing well anyway." David Pearce, for his part, advocates an utilitarianism that aims straightforwardly at the abolition of suffering through the use of biotechnology (see more details below in section Biology, neurology, psychology). Another aspect worthy of mention here is that many utilitarians since Bentham hold that the moral status of a being comes from its ability to feel pleasure and pain: therefore, moral agents should consider not only the interests of human beings but also those of (other) animals. Richard Ryder developed such a view in his concepts of 'speciesism' and 'painism'. Peter Singer's writings, especially the book Animal Liberation, represent the leading edge of this kind of utilitarianism for animals as well as for people. Another doctrine related to the relief of suffering is humanitarianism (see also humanitarian principles, humanitarian aid, and humane society). "Where humanitarian efforts seek a positive addition to the happiness of sentient beings, it is to make the unhappy happy rather than the happy happier. (...) [Humanitarianism] is an ingredient in many social attitudes; in the modern world it has so penetrated into diverse movements (...) that it can hardly be said to exist in itself."[5]

Pessimism holds this world to be the worst possible, plagued with worsening and unstoppable suffering. Arthur Schopenhauer recommends us to take refuge in things like art, philosophy, loss of the will to live, and tolerance toward 'fellow-sufferers'. Friedrich Nietzsche, first influenced by Schopenhauer, developed afterward quite another attitude, exalting the will to power, despising weak compassion or pity, and recommending us to embrace willfully the 'eternal return' of the greatest sufferings. Philosophy of pain is a philosophical specialty that focuses on physical pain as a sensation. Through that topic, it may also pertain to suffering in general.

Religion
Suffering plays an important role in a number of religions, regarding matters such as the following: consolation or relief; moral conduct (do no harm, help the afflicted, show compassion); spiritual advancement through life hardships or through self-imposed trials (mortification of the flesh, penance, ascetism); ultimate destiny (salvation, damnation, hell). Theodicy deals with the problem of evil, which is the difficulty of reconciling an omnipotent and benevolent god with evil. People often believe that the worst form of evil is extreme suffering, especially in innocent children or in beings created ultimately for being tormented without end (see problem of hell). The 'Four Noble Truths' of Buddhism are about dukkha, a term usually translated as suffering. They state (1) the nature of suffering, (2) its cause, (3) its cessation, and (4) the way leading to its cessation (which is the Noble Eightfold Path). Buddhism considers liberation from suffering and the practice of compassion (karuna) as basic for leading a holy life and attaining nirvana. Hinduism holds that suffering follows naturally from personal negative behaviors in ones current life or in a past life (see karma in Hinduism).[6] One must accept suffering as a just consequence and as an opportunity for spiritual progress. Thus the soul or true self, which is eternally free of any suffering, may come to manifest itself in the person, who then achieves liberation (moksha). Abstinence from causing pain or harm to other beings (ahimsa) is a central tenet of Hinduism. The Bible's Book of Job reflects on the nature and meaning of suffering. Pope John Paul II wrote "On the Christian Meaning of Human Suffering".[7] This meaning revolves around the notion of redemptive suffering.

Arts and literature

Artistic and literary works often engage with suffering, sometimes at great cost to their creators or performers. The Literature, Arts, and Medicine Database offers a list of such works under the categories art, film, literature, and theater. Be it in the tragic, comic or other genres, art and literature offer means to alleviate (and perhaps also exacerbate) suffering, as argued for instance in Harold Schweizer's Suffering and the remedy of art.[8]

Landscape with the Fall of Icarus This Breughel's painting is among those that inspired W.H. Auden's poem Muse des Beaux Arts : About suffering they were never wrong, The Old Masters; how well, they understood Its human position; how it takes place While someone else is eating or opening a window or just walking dully along; (...) In Breughel's Icarus, for instance: how everything turns away Quite leisurely from the disaster; (...) [9]

Social sciences
Social suffering, according to Arthur Kleinman and others, describes "collective and individual human suffering associated with life conditions shaped by powerful social forces."[10] Such suffering is an increasing concern in medical anthropology, ethnography, mass media analysis, and Holocaust studies, says Iain Wilkinson,[11] who is developing a sociology of suffering. The Encyclopedia of World Problems and Human Potential is a work by the Union of International Associations. Its main databases are about world problems (56,564 profiles), global strategies and solutions (32,547 profiles), human values (3,257 profiles), and human development (4,817 profiles). It states that "the most fundamental entry common to the core parts is that of pain (or suffering)" and "common to the core parts is the learning dimension of new understanding or insight in response to suffering."[12] Ralph G.H. Siu, an American author, urged in 1988 the "creation of a new and vigorous academic discipline, called panetics, to be devoted to the study of the infliction of suffering."[13] The International Society for Panetics was founded in 1991 to study and develop ways to reduce the infliction of human suffering by individuals acting through professions, corporations, governments, and other social groups.[14] In economics, the following notions relate not only to the matters suggested by their positive appellations, but to the matter of suffering as well: Well-being or Quality of life, Welfare economics, Happiness economics, Gross National Happiness, Genuine Progress Indicator.

In law, "Pain and suffering" is a legal term that refers to the mental anguish or physical pain endured by a plaintiff as a result of injury for which the plaintiff seeks redress.

Biology, neurology, psychology

Pain and pleasure, in the broad sense of these words, are respectively the negative and positive affects, or hedonic tones, or valences that psychologists often identify as basic in our emotional lives.[15] The evolutionary role of physical and mental suffering, through natural selection, is primordial: it warns of threats, motivates coping (fight or flight, escapism), and reinforces negatively certain behaviors (see punishment, aversives). Despite its initial disrupting nature, suffering contributes to the organization of meaning in an individual's world and psyche. In turn, meaning determines how individuals or societies experience and deal with suffering.

Neuroimaging sheds light on the seat of suffering Many brain structures and physiological processes take part in the occurrence of suffering. Various hypotheses try to account for the experience of unpleasantness. One of these, the pain overlap theory[16] takes note, thanks to neuroimaging studies, that the cingulate cortex fires up when the brain feels unpleasantness from experimentally induced social distress or physical pain as well. The theory proposes therefore that physical pain and social pain (i.e. two radically differing kinds of suffering) share a common phenomenological and neurological basis. According to David Pearces online manifesto The Hedonistic Imperative, suffering is the avoidable result of Darwinian genetic design. BLTC Research and the Abolitionist Society,[17] following Pearce's abolitionism, promote replacing the pain/pleasure axis with a robot-like response to noxious stimuli[18] or with gradients of bliss,[19] through genetic engineering and other technical scientific advances. Hedonistic psychology,[20] affective science, and affective neuroscience are some of the emerging scientific fields that could in the coming years focus their attention on the phenomenon of suffering.

Health care
Disease and injury cause suffering in humans and animals. Health care addresses this suffering in many ways, in medicine, clinical psychology, psychotherapy, alternative medicine, hygiene, public health, and through various health care providers. Health care approaches to suffering, however, remain problematic, according to Eric Cassell, the most cited author on that subject. Cassell writes: "The obligation of physicians to relieve human

suffering stretches back to antiquity. Despite this fact, little attention is explicitly given to the problem of suffering in medical education, research or practice." Cassell defines suffering as "the state of severe distress associated with events that threaten the intactness of the person."[21] Medicine makes a strong distinction between physical pain and suffering, and most attention goes to the treatment of pain. Nevertheless, physical pain itself still lacks adequate attention from the medical community, according to numerous reports.[22] Besides, some medical fields like palliative care, pain management (or pain medicine), oncology, or psychiatry, does somewhat address suffering 'as such'. In palliative care, for instance, pioneer Cicely Saunders created the concept of 'total pain' ('total suffering' say now the textbooks[23]), which encompasses the whole set of physical and mental distress, discomfort, symptoms, problems, or needs that a patient may experience hurtfully.

Relief and prevention in society

Since suffering is such a universal motivating experience, people, when asked, can relate their activities to its relief and prevention. Farmers, for instance, may claim that they prevent famine, artists may say that they take our minds off our worries, and teachers may hold that they hand down tools for coping with life hazards. In certain aspects of collective life, however, suffering is more readily an explicit concern by itself. Such aspects may include public health, human rights, humanitarian aid, disaster relief, philanthropy, economic aid, social services, insurance, and animal welfare. To these can be added the aspects of security and safety, which relate to precautionary measures taken by individuals or families, to interventions by the military, the police, the firefighters, and to notions or fields like social security, environmental security, and human security.

Uses
Philosopher Leonard Katz wrote: "But Nature, as we now know, regards ultimately only fitness and not our happiness (...), and does not scruple to use hate, fear, punishment and even war alongside affection in ordering social groups and selecting among them, just as she uses pain as well as pleasure to get us to feed, water and protect our bodies and also in forging our social bonds".[24] People make use of suffering for specific social or personal purposes in many areas of human life, as can be seen in the following instances.

In arts, literature, or entertainment, people may use suffering for creation, for performance, or for enjoyment. Entertainment particularly makes use of suffering in blood sports, violence in the media, or violent video games. In business and various organizations, suffering may be used for constraining humans or animals into required behaviors. In a criminal context, people may use suffering for coercion, revenge, or pleasure.

In interpersonal relationships, especially in places like families, schools, or workplaces, suffering is used for various motives, particularly under the form of abuse and punishment. In another fashion related to interpersonal relationships, the sick, or victims, or malingerers, may use suffering more or less voluntarily to get primary, secondary, or tertiary gain. In law, suffering is used for punishment (see penal law ); victims may refer to what legal texts call "pain and suffering" to get compensation; lawyers may use a victim's suffering as an argument against the accused; an accused's or defendant's suffering may be an argument in their favor. In the news media, suffering is often the raw material.[25] In personal conduct, people may use suffering for themselves, in a positive way.[26] Personal suffering may lead, if bitterness, depression, or spitefulness is avoided, to character-building, spiritual growth, or moral achievement;[27] realizing the extent or gravity of suffering in the world may motivate one to relieve it and may give an inspiring direction to one's life. Alternatively, people may make self-detrimental use of suffering. Some may be caught in compulsive reenactment of painful feelings in order to protect them from seeing that those feelings have their origin in unmentionable past experiences; some may addictively indulge in disagreeable emotions like fear, anger, or jealousy, in order to enjoy pleasant feelings of arousal or release that often accompany these emotions; some may engage in acts of self-harm aimed at relieving otherwise unbearable states of mind. In politics, there is purposeful infliction of suffering in war, torture, and terrorism; people may use nonphysical suffering against competitors in nonviolent power struggles; people who argue for a policy may put forward the need to relieve, prevent or avenge suffering; individuals or groups may use past suffering as a political lever in their favor. In religion, suffering is used especially to grow spiritually, to expiate, to inspire compassion and help, to frighten, to punish. In rites of passage (see also hazing, ragging), rituals that make use of suffering are frequent. In science, humans and animals are subjected on purpose to unpleasant experiences for the study of suffering or other phenomena. In sex, individuals may use suffering in a context of sadism and masochism or BDSM. In sports, suffering may be used to outperform competitors or oneself; see sports injury, and no pain, no gain; see also blood sport and violence in sport as instances of pain-based entertainment.

Natural and legal rights are two types of rights theoretically distinct according to philosophers and political scientists. Natural rights, also called inalienable rights, are considered to be self-

evident and universal. They are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government. Legal rights, also called statutory rights, are bestowed by a particular government to the governed people and are relative to specific cultures and governments. They are enumerated or codified into legal statutes by a legislative body.

Contents
[hide]

1 Overview 2 History o 2.1 Ancient history o 2.2 Modern history o 2.3 Contemporary history 3 Legal rights documents 4 Natural rights theories o 4.1 Thomas Hobbes o 4.2 John Locke o 4.3 Thomas Paine 5 Debate 6 See also 7 Notes 8 Further reading 9 External Link

Overview
The theory of natural law is closely related to the theory of natural rights. During the Age of Enlightenment, natural law theory challenged the divine right of kings, and became an alternative justification for the establishment of a social contract, positive law, and government and thus legal rights in the form of classical republicanism. Conversely, the concept of natural rights is used by some anarchists to challenge the legitimacy of all such establishments.[1][2] The idea of human rights is also closely related to that of natural rights; some recognize no difference between the two and regard both as labels for the same thing, while others choose to keep the terms separate to eliminate association with some features traditionally associated with natural rights.[3] Natural rights, in particular, are considered beyond the authority of any government or international body to dismiss. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an important legal instrument enshrining one conception of natural rights into international soft law. The legal philosophy known as Declarationism seeks to incorporate the natural rights philosophy of the United States Declaration of Independence into the body of American case law on a level with the United States Constitution.

The idea that animals have natural rights is one that has gained the interest of philosophers and legal scholars in the 20th century,[4] and as such, even on a natural rights conception of human rights, the two terms may not be synonymous.

History
While the existence of legal rights has always been uncontroversial, the idea that certain rights are natural or inalienable also has a long history dating back at least to the Stoics of late Antiquity and Catholic law of the early Middle Ages, and descending through the Protestant Reformation and the Age of Enlightenment to today.

Ancient history
The Stoics held that no one was a slave by their nature; slavery was an external condition juxtaposed to the internal freedom of the soul (sui juris). Seneca the Younger wrote:

It is a mistake to imagine that slavery pervades a man's whole being; the better part of him is exempt from it: the body indeed is subjected and in the power of a master, but the mind is independent, and indeed is so free and wild, that it cannot be restrained even by this prison of the body, wherein it is confined.[5]

Of fundamental importance to the development of the idea of natural rights was the emergence of the idea of natural human equality. As the historian A.J. Carlyle notes: "There is no change in political theory so startling in its completeness as the change from the theory of Aristotle to the later philosophical view represented by Cicero and Seneca.... We think that this cannot be better exemplified than with regard to the theory of the equality of human nature."[6] Charles H. McIlwain likewise observes that "the idea of the equality of men is the profoundest contribution of the Stoics to political thought" and that "its greatest influence is in the changed conception of law that in part resulted from it."[7] Cicero argues in De Legibus that "we are born for Justice, and that right is based, not upon's opinions, but upon Nature."[8]

Modern history
Centuries later, the Stoic doctrine that the "inner part cannot be delivered into bondage"[9] reemerged in the Reformation doctrine of liberty of conscience. Martin Luther wrote:

Furthermore, every man is responsible for his own faith, and he must see it for himself that he believes rightly. As little as another can go to hell or heaven for me, so little can he believe or disbelieve for me; and as little as he can open or shut heaven or hell for me, so little can he drive me to faith or unbelief. Since, then, belief or unbelief is a matter of every one's conscience, and since this is no lessening of the secular power, the latter should be content and attend to its own affairs and permit men to believe one thing or another, as they are able and willing, and constrain no

one by force.[10]

John Locke, "Life, Liberty, Estate (property)" 17th-century English, philosopher John Locke discussed natural rights in his work, identifying them as being "life, liberty, and estate (property)", and argued that such fundamental rights could not be surrendered in the social contract. Preservation of the natural rights to life, liberty, and property was claimed as justification for the rebellion of the American colonies. As George Mason stated in his draft for the Virginia Declaration of Rights, "all men are born equally free," and hold "certain inherent natural rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity."[11] Another 17th-century Englishman, John Lilburne (known as Freeborn John), who came into conflict with both the monarchy of King Charles I and the military dictatorship of Oliver Cromwell governed republic, argued for level human basic rights he called "freeborn rights" which he defined as being rights that every human being is born with, as opposed to rights bestowed by government or by human law. The distinction between alienable and unalienable rights was introduced by Francis Hutcheson. In his (1725) Inquiry into the Original of Our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue, Hutcheson foreshadowed the Declaration of Independence, stating: For wherever any Invasion is made upon unalienable Rights, there must arise either a perfect, or external Right to Resistance. . . . Unalienable Rights are essential Limitations in all Governments. However, Hutcheson placed clear limits on his notion of unalienable rights, declaring that there can be no Right, or Limitation of Right, inconsistent with, or opposite to the greatest publick Good."[12] Hutcheson elaborated on this idea of unalienable rights in his A System of Moral Philosophy (1755), based on the Reformation principle of the liberty of conscience. One could not in fact give up the capacity for private judgment (e.g., about religious questions) regardless of any external contracts or oaths to religious or secular authorities so that right is "unalienable." As Hutcheson wrote, "Thus no man can really change his sentiments, judgments, and inward affections, at the pleasure of another; nor can it tend to any good to make him profess what is contrary to his heart. The right of private judgment is therefore unalienable."[13] In the German Enlightenment, Hegel gave a highly developed treatment of this inalienability argument. Like Hutcheson, Hegel based the theory of inalienable rights on the de facto inalienability of those aspects of personhood that distinguish persons from things. A thing, like a piece of property, can in fact be transferred from one person to another. But the same would not apply to those aspects that make one a person, wrote Hegel:

The right to what is in essence inalienable is imprescriptible, since the act whereby I take possession of my personality, of my substantive essence, and make myself a responsible being, capable of possessing rights and with a moral and religious life, takes away from these characteristics of mine just that externality which alone made them capable of passing into the possession of someone else. When I have thus annulled their externality, I cannot lose them through lapse of time or from any other reason drawn from my prior consent or willingness to alienate them.[14]

Thus in discussion of social contract theory, "inalienable rights" were said to be those rights that could not be surrendered by citizens to the sovereign. Such rights were thought to be natural rights, independent of positive law. However, many social contract theorists reasoned that in the natural state only the strongest could benefit from their rights. Thus people form an implicit social contract, ceding their natural rights to the authority to protect them from abuse, and living henceforth under the legal rights of that authority. But many historical apologies for slavery and illiberal government were based on explicit or implicit voluntary contracts to alienate any "natural rights" to freedom and self-determination.[15] The de facto inalienability arguments of the Hutcheson and his predecessors provided the basis for the anti-slavery movement to argue not simply against involuntary slavery but against any explicit or implied contractual forms of slavery. Any contract that tried to legally alienate such a right would be inherently invalid. Similarly, the argument was used by the democratic movement to argue against any explicit or implied social contracts of subjection (pactum subjectionis) by which a people would supposedly alienate their right of self-government to a sovereign as, for example, in Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes. According to Ernst Cassirer,

There is, at least, one right that cannot be ceded or abandoned: the right to personality...They charged the great logician [Hobbes] with a contradiction in terms. If a man could give up his personality he would cease being a moral being. ... There is no pactum subjectionis, no act of submission by which man can give up the state of free agent and enslave himself. For by such an act of renunciation he would give up that very character which constitutes his nature and essence: he would lose his humanity.[16]

These themes converged in the debate about American Independence. While Jefferson was writing the Declaration of Independence, Richard Price in England sided with the Americans' claim "that Great Britain is attempting to rob them of that liberty to which every member of society and all civil communities have a natural and unalienable title."[17] Price again based the argument on the de facto inalienability of "that principle of spontaneity or self-determination which constitutes us agents or which gives us a command over our actions, rendering them properly ours, and not effects of the operation of any foreign cause.[18] Any social contract or compact allegedly alienating these rights would be non-binding and void, wrote Price:

Neither can any state acquire such an authority over other states in virtue of any compacts or cessions. This is a case in which compacts are not binding. Civil liberty is, in this respect, on the same footing with religious liberty. As no people can lawfully surrender their religious liberty by giving up their right of judging for themselves in religion, or by allowing any human beings to prescribe to them what faith they shall embrace, or what mode of worship they shall practise, so neither can any civil societies lawfully surrender their civil liberty by giving up to any extraneous jurisdiction their power of legislating for themselves and disposing their property.[19]

Price raised a furor of opposition so in 1777 he wrote another tract that clarified his position and again restated the de facto basis for the argument that the "liberty of men as agents is that power of self-determination which all agents, as such, possess."[20] In Intellectual Origins of American Radicalism, Staughton Lynd pulled together these themes and related them to the slavery debate:

Then it turned out to make considerable difference whether one said slavery was wrong because every man has a natural right to the possession of his own body, or because every man has a natural right freely to determine his own destiny. The first kind of right was alienable: thus Locke neatly derived slavery from capture in war, whereby a man forfeited his labor to the conqueror who might lawfully have killed him; and thus Dred Scott was judged permanently to have given up his freedom. But the second kind of right, what Price called "that power of self-determination which all agents, as such, possess," was inalienable as long man remained man. Like the mind's quest for religious truth from which it was derived, self-determination was not a claim to ownership which might be both acquired and surrendered, but an inextricable aspect of the activity of being human.[21]

Meanwhile in America, Thomas Jefferson "took his division of rights into alienable and unalienable from Hutcheson, who made the distinction popular and important",[22] and in the 1776 United States Declaration of Independence, famously condensed this to:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

In the nineteenth century, the movement to abolish slavery seized this passage as a statement of constitutional principle, although the U.S. constitution recognized and protected slavery. As a lawyer, future Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase argued before the Supreme Court in the case of John Van Zandt, who had been charged with violating the Fugitive Slave Act, that:

"The law of the Creator, which invests every human being with an inalienable title to freedom, cannot be repealed by any interior law which asserts that man is property."

Contemporary history
Many documents now echo the phrase used in the United States Declaration of Independence. The preamble to the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts that rights are inalienable: "recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world." Article 1, 1 of the California Constitution recognizes inalienable rights, and articulated some (not all) of those rights as "defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy." However, there is still much dispute over which "rights" are truly natural rights and which are not, and the concept of natural or inalienable rights is still controversial to some. Contemporary political philosophies continuing the liberal tradition of natural rights include libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism and Objectivism, and include amongst their canon the works of authors such as Robert Nozick, Ludwig von Mises, Ayn Rand,[23] and Murray Rothbard[citation needed]. A libertarian view of inalienable rights is laid out in Morris and Linda Tannehill's The Market for Liberty, which claims that a man has a right to ownership over his life and therefore also his property, because he has invested time (i.e. part of his life) in it and thereby made it an extension of his life. However, if he initiates force against and to the detriment of another man, he alienates himself from the right to that part of his life which is required to pay his debt: "Rights are not inalienable, but only the possessor of a right can alienate himself from that right no one else can take a man's rights from him."[24]

Legal rights documents

The specific enumeration of legal rights accorded to people has historically differed greatly from one century to the next, and from one regime to the next, but nowadays is normally addressed by the constitutions of the respective nations. The following documents have each played important historical roles in establishing legal rights norms around the world.

The Magna Carta (1215; England) required the King of England to renounce certain rights and respect certain legal procedures, and to accept that the will of the king could be bound by law. The Declaration of Arbroath (1320; Scotland) established the right of the people to choose a head of state (see Popular sovereignty). The Bill of Rights (1689; England) declared that Englishmen, as embodied by Parliament, possess certain civil and political rights. The Claim of Right (1689; Scotland) was one of the key documents of Scottish constitutional law. United States Declaration of Independence (1776) succinctly defined the rights of man as including, but not limited to, "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" which later influenced "libert, galit, fraternit" (liberty, equality, fraternity) in France[25] The phrase can also be found in Chapter III, Article 13 of the 1947 Constitution of Japan,[26] and in President Ho Chi Minh's 1945 declaration of independence of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam[27]. An alternative phrase "life, liberty and property", is found in the Declaration of Colonial Rights, a resolution of the First Continental Congress. Also, Article 3 of the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads, "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (1785; United States) Written by Thomas Jefferson in 1779, the document asserted the right of man to form a personal relationship with God without interference by the state. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789; France) was one of the fundamental documents of the French Revolution, defining a set of individual rights and collective rights of the people. The United States Bill of Rights (1789/1791; United States), the first ten amendments of the United States Constitution, was another influential document. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) is an over-arching set of standards by which governments, organisations and individuals would measure their behaviour towards each other. The preamble declares that the "...recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world..." The European Convention on Human Rights (1950; Europe) was adopted under the auspices of the Council of Europe to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) is a follow-up to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, concerning civil and political rights. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966) is another follow-up to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, concerning economic, social and cultural rights. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982; Canada) was created to protect the rights of Canadian citizens from actions and policies of all levels of government. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2000) is one of the most recent legal instruments concerning human rights.

Natural rights theories

The existence of natural rights has been asserted by different individuals on different premises, such as a priori philosophical reasoning or religious principles. For example, Immanuel Kant claimed to derive natural rights through "reason" alone. The Declaration of Independence, meanwhile, is based upon the "self-evident" truth that "all men are ... endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights".[28] Likewise, different philosophers and statesmen have designed different lists of what they believe to be natural rights; almost all include the right to life and liberty as the two highest priorities. H. L. A. Hart argued that if there are any rights at all, there must be the right to liberty, for all the others would depend upon this. T. H. Green argued that if there are such things as rights at all, then, there must be a right to life and liberty, or, to put it more properly to free life.[29] John Locke emphasized "life, liberty and property" as primary. However, despite Locke's influential defense of the right of revolution, Thomas Jefferson substituted "pursuit of happiness" in place of "property" in the United States Declaration of Independence.

Thomas Hobbes

Main article: Thomas Hobbes Thomas Hobbes (15881679) included a discussion of natural rights in his moral and political philosophy. Hobbes' conception of natural rights extended from his conception of man in a "state of nature". Thus he argued that the essential natural (human) right was "to use his own power, as he will himself, for the preservation of his own Nature; that is to say, of his own Life; and consequently, of doing any thing, which in his own judgement, and Reason, he shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto." (Leviathan. 1,XIV) According to Hobbes, to deny this right would be absurd, just as it would be absurd to expect that carnivores might reject meat or fish stop swimming. Hobbes sharply distinguished this natural "liberty", from natural "laws" (obligations), described generally as "a precept, or general rule, found out by reason, by which a man is forbidden to do, that, which is destructive of his life, or taketh away the means of preserving his life; and to omit, that, by which he thinketh it may best be preserved." (ibid.) In his natural state, according to Hobbes, man's life consisted entirely of liberties and not at all of laws "It followeth, that in such a condition, every man has the right to every thing; even to one another's body. And therefore, as long as this natural Right of every man to every thing endureth, there can be no security to any man... of living out the time, which Nature ordinarily allow men to live." (ibid.) This would lead inevitably to a situation known as the "war of all against all", in which human beings kill, steal and enslave others in order to stay alive, and due to their natural lust for "Gain", "Safety" and "Reputation". Hobbes reasoned that this world of chaos created by unlimited rights was highly undesirable, since it would cause human life to be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". As such, if humans wish to live peacefully they must give up most of their natural rights and create moral obligations in order to establish political and civil society. This is one of the earliest formulations of the theory of government known as the social contract. Hobbes objected to the attempt to derive rights from "natural law," arguing that law ("lex") and right ("jus") though often confused, signify opposites, with law referring to obligations, while rights refer to the absence of obligations. Since by our (human) nature, we seek to maximize our well being, rights are prior to law, natural or institutional, and people will not follow the laws of nature without first being subjected to a sovereign power, without which all ideas of right and wrong are rendered insignificant "Therefore before the names of Just and Unjust can have place, there must be some coercive Power, to compel men equally to the performance of their Covenants..., to make good that Propriety, which by mutual contract men acquire, in recompense of the universal Right they abandon: and such power there is none before the erection of the Commonwealth." (Leviathan. 1, XV) This marked an important departure from medieval natural law theories which gave precedence to obligations over rights.

John Locke

Main article: John Locke John Locke (16321704), was another prominent Western philosopher who conceptualized rights as natural and inalienable. Like Hobbes, Locke was a major social contract thinker. He said that man's natural rights are life, liberty, and property. It was once conventional wisdom that Locke greatly influenced the American Revolutionary War with his writings of natural rights, but this claim has been the subject of protracted dispute in recent decades.[citation needed] For example, the historian Ray Forrest Harvey declared that Jefferson and Locke were at "two opposite poles" in their political philosophy, as evidenced by Jeffersons use in the Declaration of Independence of the phrase "pursuit of happiness" instead of "property."[30] More recently, the eminent[31] legal historian John Phillip Reid has deplored contemporary scholars "misplaced emphasis on John Locke," arguing that American revolutionary leaders saw Locke as a commentator on established constitutional principles.[32][33] Thomas Pangle has defended Locke's influence on the Founding, claiming that historians who argue to the contrary either misrepresent the classical republican alternative to which they say the revolutionary leaders adhered, do not understand Locke, or point to someone else who was decisively influenced by Locke.[34] This position has also been sustained by Michael Zuckert.[35][36][37] According to Locke there are three natural rights:

Life: everyone is entitled to live once they are created. Liberty: everyone is entitled to do anything they want to so long as it doesn't conflict with the first right. Estate: everyone is entitled to own all they create or gain through gift or trade so long as it doesn't conflict with the first two rights.

The social contract is a contract between a being or beings of power and their people or followers. The King makes the laws to protect the three natural rights. The people may not agree on the laws, but they have to follow them. The people can be prosecuted and/or killed if they break these laws. If the King does not follow these rules, he can be overthrown.

Thomas Paine
Main article: Thomas Paine Thomas Paine (17311809) further elaborated on natural rights in his influential work Rights of Man (1791), emphasizing that rights cannot be granted by any charter because this would legally imply they can also be revoked and under such circumstances they would be reduced to privileges: It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect that of taking rights away. Rights are inherently in all the inhabitants; but charters, by annulling those rights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few. ... They...consequently are instruments of injustice.

The fact therefore must be that the individuals themselves, each in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a contract with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist.

Debate
Various definitions of inalienability include non-relinquishability, non-salability, and nontransferability.[38] This concept has been recognized by libertarians as being central to the question of voluntary slavery, which Murray Rothbard dismissed as illegitimate and even self-contradictory. [39] Stephan Kinsella argues that "viewing rights as alienable is perfectly consistent withindeed, implied bythe libertarian non-aggression principle. Under this principle, only the initiation of force is prohibited; defensive, restitutive, or retaliatory force is not."[40] The concept of inalienable rights was criticized by Jeremy Bentham and Edmund Burke as groundless. Bentham and Burke, writing in the eighteenth century, claimed that rights arise from the actions of government, or evolve from tradition, and that neither of these can provide anything inalienable. (See Bentham's "Critique of the Doctrine of Inalienable, Natural Rights", and Burke's "Reflections on the Revolution in France"). Presaging the shift in thinking in the 19th century, Bentham famously dismissed the idea of natural rights as "nonsense on stilts". By way of contrast to the views of Burke and Bentham, the leading American revolutionary scholar James Wilson condemned Burke's view as "tyranny."[41] The signers of the Declaration of Independence deemed it a "self evident truth" that all men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". Critics[who?], however, could argue that use of the word "Creator" signifies that these rights are based on theological principles, and might question which theological principles those are, or why those theological principles should be accepted by people who do not adhere to the religion from which they are derived[citation needed]. In "The Social Contract," Jean-Jacques Rousseau claims that the existence of inalienable rights is unnecessary for the existence of a constitution or a set of laws and rights. This idea of a social contract that rights and responsibilities are derived from a consensual contract between the government and the people is the most widely recognized alternative. Samuel P. Huntington, an American political scientist, wrote that the "inalienable rights" argument from the Declaration of Independence was necessary because "The British were white, Anglo, and Protestant, just as we were. [Advocates for the Declaration's adoption] had to have some other basis on which to justify independence".[citation needed] Different philosophers have created different lists of rights they consider to be natural. Proponents of natural rights, in particular Hesselberg and Rothbard, have responded that reason can be applied to separate truly axiomatic rights from supposed rights, stating that any principle that requires itself to be disproved is an axiom. Critics have pointed to the lack of agreement between the proponents as evidence for the claim that the idea of natural rights is merely a political tool. For instance, Jonathan Wallace has asserted that there is no basis on which to claim that some rights are natural, and he argued that Hobbes' account of natural rights confuses right with ability (human beings have the ability to seek only their own good and follow their nature in the same way as animals,

but this does not imply that they have a right to do so).[42] Wallace advocates a social contract, much like Hobbes and Locke, but does not base it on natural rights: We are all at a table together, deciding which rules to adopt, free from any vague constraints, halfremembered myths, anonymous patriarchal texts and murky concepts of nature. If I propose something you do not like, tell me why it is not practical, or harms somebody, or is counter to some other useful rule; but don't tell me it offends the universe. Other critics[who?] have argued that the attempt to derive rights from "natural law" or "human nature" is an example of the is-ought problem. However, the term "natural" in "natural rights" refers to the opposite of "artificial", rather than meaning "physical" as it does in the sense of ethical naturalism, which according to G.E. Moore does suffer the is-ought problem in the form of the naturalistic fallacy. Hugh Gibbons has proposed a descriptive argument based on human biology. He claims that Human Beings were other-regarding as a matter of necessity, in order to avoid the costs of conflict. Over time they developed expectations that individuals would act in certain ways which were then prescribed by society (duties of care etc.) and that eventually crystallized into actionable rights.[43] There is also debate as to whether all rights are either natural or legal. Fourth president of the United States James Madison, while representing Virginia in the House of Representatives, believed that there are rights, such as trial by jury, are social rights, that arising neither from natural law nor from positive law (which are the basis of natural and legal rights respectively) but from the social contract from which a government derives its authority.[44] Axiology (from Greek , axi, "value, worth"; and -, -logia) is the philosophical study of value. It is either the collective term for ethics and aesthetics[1]philosophical fields that depend crucially on notions of valueor the foundation for these fields, and thus similar to value theory and meta-ethics. The term was first used in the early 20th century by Paul Lapie, in 1902, and E. von Hartmann, in 1908.[2] Axiology studies mainly two kinds of values: ethics and aesthetics. Ethics investigates the concepts of "right" and "good" in individual and social conduct. Aesthetics studies the concepts of "beauty" and "harmony." Formal axiology, the attempt to lay out principles regarding value with mathematical rigor, is exemplified by Robert S. Hartman's Science of Value. Human rights are "rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled."[1] Proponents of the concept usually assert that everyone is endowed with certain entitlements merely by reason of being human.[2] Human rights are thus conceived in a universalist and egalitarian fashion. Such entitlements can exist as shared norms of actual human moralities, as justified moral norms or natural rights supported by strong reasons, or as legal rights either at a national level or within international law.[3] However, there is no consensus as to the precise nature of what in particular should or should not be regarded as a human right in any of the preceding senses, and the abstract concept of human rights has been a subject of intense philosophical debate and criticism.

The human rights movement emerged in the 1970s, especially from former socialists in eastern and western Europe, with major contributions also from the United States and Latin America. The movement quickly jelled as social activism and political rhetoric in many nations put it high on the world agenda.[4] By the 21st century, Moyn has argued, the human rights movement expanded beyond its original anti-totalitarianism to include numerous causes involving humanitarianism and social and economic development in the Third World.[5] Many of the basic ideas that animated the movement developed in the aftermath of the Second World War, culminating in its adoption by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. While the phrase "human rights" is relatively modern the intellectual foundations of the modern concept can be traced through the history of philosophy and the concepts of natural law rights and liberties as far back as the city states of Classical Greece and the development of Roman Law. The true forerunner of human rights discourse was the enlightenment concept of natural rights developed by figures such as John Locke and Immanuel Kant and through the political realm in the United States Bill of Rights and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Article 1 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)[6]

Contents
[hide]

1 History 2 Philosophy 3 International law o 3.1 Universal Declaration of Human Rights o 3.2 Treaties o 3.3 Humanitarian Law 4 International organizations o 4.1 United Nations 4.1.1 Human Rights Council 4.1.2 Other UN Treaty Bodies o 4.2 Non-governmental Organizations 5 Regional human rights o 5.1 Africa o 5.2 Americas o 5.3 Asia o 5.4 Europe o 5.5 Oceania 6 Concepts in human rights o 6.1 Indivisibility and categorization

6.1.1 Indivisibility 6.1.2 Categorization o 6.2 Universalism vs. cultural relativism o 6.3 State and non-state actors 7 Legal issues o 7.1 Human rights vs. national security o 7.2 Human rights violations 8 Currently debated rights o 8.1 Environmental rights o 8.2 Future generations o 8.3 Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT) rights o 8.4 Trade o 8.5 Water o 8.6 Crime and Punishment o 8.7 Fetal rights o 8.8 Reproductive rights o 8.9 ICT & Human Rights 9 See also 10 References 11 Further reading

12 External links

[edit] History
Main article: History of human rights Although ideas of rights and liberty have existed for much of human history, it is unclear to what degree such concepts can be described as "human rights" in the modern sense. The concept of rights certainly existed in pre-modern cultures; ancient philosophers such as Aristotle wrote extensively on the rights (to dikaion in ancient Greek, roughly a 'just claim') of citizens to property and participation in public affairs. However, neither the Greeks nor the Romans had any concept of universal human rights; slavery, for instance, was justified in both ancient and modern times as a natural condition.[7] Medieval charters of liberty such as the English Magna Carta were not charters of human rights, let alone general charters of rights: they instead constituted a form of limited political and legal agreement to address specific political circumstances, in the case of Magna Carta later being mythologized in the course of early modern debates about rights.[8] The basis of most modern legal interpretations of human rights can be traced back to recent European history. The Twelve Articles (1525) are considered to be the first record of human rights in Europe. They were part of the peasants' demands raised towards the Swabian League in the German Peasants' War in Germany. In Spain in 1542 Bartolom de Las Casas argued against Juan Gines de Seplveda in the famous Valladolid debate, Seplveda mainted an Aristotelian view of humanity as divided into classes of different worth, while Las Casas argued in favor of equal rights to freedom of slavery for all humans regardless of race or religion. In Britain in 1683, the English

Bill of Rights (or "An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown") and the Scottish Claim of Right each made illegal a range of oppressive governmental actions. Two major revolutions occurred during the 18th century, in the United States (1776) and in France (1789), leading to the adoption of the United States Declaration of Independence and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen respectively, both of which established certain legal rights. Additionally, the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776 encoded into law a number of fundamental civil rights and civil freedoms.

Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen approved by the National Assembly of France, August 26, 1789.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

United States Declaration of Independence, 1776

These were followed by developments in philosophy of human rights by philosophers such as Thomas Paine, John Stuart Mill and G.W.F. Hegel during the 18th and 19th centuries. The term human rights probably came into use some time between Paine's The Rights of Man and William Lloyd Garrison's 1831 writings in The Liberator, in which he stated that he was trying to enlist his readers in "the great cause of human rights".[9] In the 19th century, human rights became a central concern over the issue of slavery. A number of reformers, such as William Wilberforce in Britain, worked towards the abolition of slavery. This was achieved in the British Empire by the Slave Trade Act 1807 and the Slavery Abolition Act 1833. In the United States, all the northern states had abolished the institution of slavery between 1777 and 1804, although southern states clung tightly to the "peculiar institution". Conflict and debates over the expansion of slavery to new territories culminated in the southern states' secession and the American Civil War. During the reconstruction period immediately following the war,

several amendments to the United States Constitution were made. These included the 13th amendment, banning slavery, the 14th amendment, assuring full citizenship and civil rights to all people born in the United States, and the 15th amendment, guaranteeing African Americans the right to vote.[10] Many groups and movements have achieved profound social changes over the course of the 20th century in the name of human rights. In Western Europe and North America, labour unions brought about laws granting workers the right to strike, establishing minimum work conditions and forbidding or regulating child labor. The women's rights movement succeeded in gaining for many women the right to vote. National liberation movements in many countries succeeded in driving out colonial powers. One of the most influential was Mahatma Gandhi's movement to free his native India from British rule. Movements by long-oppressed racial and religious minorities succeeded in many parts of the world, among them the African American Civil Rights Movement, and more recent diverse identity politics movements, on behalf of women and minorities in the United States. The establishment of the International Committee of the Red Cross, the 1864 Lieber Code and the first of the Geneva Conventions in 1864 laid the foundations of International humanitarian law, to be further developed following the two World Wars. The World Wars, and the huge losses of life and gross abuses of human rights that took place during them, were a driving force behind the development of modern human rights instruments. The League of Nations was established in 1919 at the negotiations over the Treaty of Versailles following the end of World War I. The League's goals included disarmament, preventing war through collective security, settling disputes between countries through negotiation and diplomacy, and improving global welfare. Enshrined in its charter was a mandate to promote many of the rights later included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. At the 1945 Yalta Conference, the Allied Powers agreed to create a new body to supplant the League's role; this was to be the United Nations. The United Nations has played an important role in international human-rights law since its creation. Following the World Wars, the United Nations and its members developed much of the discourse and the bodies of law that now make up international humanitarian law and international human rights law.

[edit] Philosophy
Main article: Philosophy of human rights The philosophy of human rights attempts to examine the underlying basis of the concept of human rights and critically looks at its content and justification. Several theoretical approaches have been advanced to explain how and why human rights become part of social expectations. One of the oldest Western philosophies on human rights is that they are a product of a natural law, stemming from different philosophical or religious grounds. Other theories hold that human rights codify moral behavior which is a human social product developed by a process of biological and social evolution (associated with Hume). Human rights are also described as a sociological pattern

of rule setting (as in the sociological theory of law and the work of Weber). These approaches include the notion that individuals in a society accept rules from legitimate authority in exchange for security and economic advantage (as in Rawls) a social contract. The two theories that dominate contemporary human rights discussion are the interest theory and the will theory. Interest theory argues that the that the principal function of human rights is to protect and promote certain essential human interests, while will theory attempts to establish the validity of human rights based on the unique human capacity for freedom.[11] The strong claims made by human rights to universality and have led to persistent criticism. Philosophers who have criticized the concept of human rights include Jeremy Bentham, Edmund Burke, Friedrich Nietzsche and Karl Marx. A recent critique has been advanced by Charles Blattberg in his essay "The Ironic Tragedy of Human Rights." Blattberg argues that rights talk, being abstract, is counterproductive since it demotivates people from upholding the values that rights are meant to assert.[12]

[edit] International law

Main article: International human rights law Modern international conceptions of human rights can be traced to the aftermath of World War II and the foundation of the United Nations. Article 1(3) of the United Nations charter states that one of the purposes of the UN is: "to achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion".[13] The rights espoused in the UN charter would be codified in the International Bill of Human Rights, composing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

[edit] Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Main article: Universal Declaration of Human Rights

"It is not a treaty...[In the future, it] may well become the international Magna Carta."[14] Eleanor Roosevelt with the Spanish text of the Universal Declaration in 1949. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly[15] in 1948, partly in response to the atrocities of World War II. Although the UDHR was a non-binding resolution, it is now considered by some to have acquired the force of international customary law which may be invoked in appropriate circumstances by national and

other judiciaries.[16] The UDHR urges member nations to promote a number of human, civil, economic and social rights, asserting these rights as part of the "foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world." The declaration was the first international legal effort to limit the behaviour of states and press upon them duties to their citizens following the model of the rights-duty duality.

...recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world

Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948

The UDHR was framed by members of the Human Rights Commission, with former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt as Chair, who began to discuss an International Bill of Rights in 1947. The members of the Commission did not immediately agree on the form of such a bill of rights, and whether, or how, it should be enforced. The Commission proceeded to frame the UDHR and accompanying treaties, but the UDHR quickly became the priority.[17] Canadian law professor John Humphrey and French lawyer Ren Cassin were responsible for much of the cross-national research and the structure of the document respectively, where the articles of the declaration were interpretative of the general principle of the preamble. The document was structured by Cassin to include the basic principles of dignity, liberty, equality and brotherhood in the first two articles, followed successively by rights pertaining to individuals; rights of individuals in relation to each other and to groups; spiritual, public and political rights; and economic, social and cultural rights. The final three articles place, according to Cassin, rights in the context of limits, duties and the social and political order in which they are to be realized.[17] Humphrey and Cassin intended the rights in the UDHR to be legally enforceable through some means, as is reflected in the third clause of the preamble:[17]

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law.

Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948

Some of the UDHR was researched and written by a committee of international experts on human rights, including representatives from all continents and all major religions, and drawing on consultation with leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi.[18][19] The inclusion of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights[17][20] was predicated on the assumption that all human rights are indivisible and that the different types of rights listed are inextricably linked. This principle was not then opposed by any member states (the declaration was adopted unanimously, Byelorussian SSR, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Ukrainian SSR, Union of South Africa, USSR, Yugoslavia.); however, this principle was later subject to significant challenges.[20] The Universal Declaration was bifurcated into treaties, a Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and another on social, economic, and cultural rights, due to questions about the relevance and

propriety of economic and social provisions in covenants on human rights. Both covenants begin with the right of people to self-determination and to sovereignty over their natural resources. This debate over whether human rights are more fundamental than economic rights has continued to the present day.[21] The drafters of the Covenants initially intended only one instrument. The original drafts included only political and civil rights, but economic and social rights were also proposed. The disagreement over which rights were basic human rights resulted in there being two covenants. The debate was whether economic and social rights are aspirational, as contrasted with basic human rights which all people possess purely by being human, because economic and social rights depend on wealth and the availability of resources. In addition, which social and economic rights should be recognised depends on ideology or economic theories, in contrast to basic human rights, which are defined purely by the nature (mental and physical abilities) of human beings. It was debated whether economic rights were appropriate subjects for binding obligations and whether the lack of consensus over such rights would dilute the strength of political-civil rights. There was wide agreement and clear recognition that the means required to enforce or induce compliance with socio-economic undertakings were different from the means required for civil-political rights.[22] This debate and the desire for the greatest number of signatories to human-rights law led to the two covenants. The Soviet bloc and a number of developing countries had argued for the inclusion of all rights in a so-called Unity Resolution. Both covenants allowed states to derogate some rights. [citation needed] Those in favor of a single treaty could not gain sufficient consensus.[23][24]

[edit] Treaties
In 1966, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) were adopted by the United Nations, between them making the rights contained in the UDHR binding on all states that have signed this treaty, creating human-rights law. Since then numerous other treaties (pieces of legislation) have been offered at the international level. They are generally known as human rights instruments. Some of the most significant, referred to (with ICCPR and ICESCR) as "the seven core treaties", are:

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) (adopted 1966, entry into force: 1969) [25] Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) (adopted 1979, entry into force: 1981) [26] United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT) (adopted 1984, entry into force: 1984)
[27]

Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) (adopted 1989, entry into force: 1989) [6] Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) (adopted 2006, entry into force: 2008) [28] International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families (ICRMW or more often MWC) (adopted 1990, entry into force: 2003)

[edit] Humanitarian Law

Original Geneva Convention in 1864. Main articles: Geneva Conventions and Humanitarian law The Geneva Conventions came into being between 1864 and 1949 as a result of efforts by Henry Dunant, the founder of the International Committee of the Red Cross. The conventions safeguard the human rights of individuals involved in armed conflict, and build on the 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions, the international community's first attempt to formalize the laws of war and war crimes in the nascent body of secular international law. The conventions were revised as a result of World War II and readopted by the international community in 1949.

[edit] International organizations

[edit] United Nations
Main article: United Nations

The UN General Assembly The United Nations (UN) as an intergovernmental body seeks to apply international jurisdiction for universal human-rights legislation.[29] Within the UN machinery, human-rights issues are primarily the concern of the United Nations Security Council and the United Nations Human Rights Council, and there are numerous committees within the UN with responsibilities for safeguarding different human-rights treaties. The most senior body of the UN in the sphere of human rights is the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The United Nations has an international mandate to:

...achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, gender, language, or religion.
Article 13 of the United Nations Charter

[edit] Human Rights Council

United Nations Human Rights Council logo. Main article: United Nations Human Rights Council The United Nations Human Rights Council, created at the 2005 World Summit to replace the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, has a mandate to investigate violations of human rights.[30] The Human Rights Council is a subsidiary body of the General Assembly[31] and reports directly to it. It ranks below the Security Council, which is the final authority for the interpretation of the United Nations Charter.[32] Forty-seven of the one hundred ninety-one member states sit on the council, elected by simple majority in a secret ballot of the United Nations General Assembly. Members serve a maximum of six years and may have their membership suspended for gross human rights abuses. The Council is based in Geneva, and meets three times a year; with additional meetings to respond to urgent situations.[33] Independent experts (rapporteurs) are retained by the Council to investigate alleged human rights abuses and to provide the Council with reports. The Human Rights Council may request that the Security Council take action when human rights violations occur. This action may be direct actions, may involve sanctions, and the Security Council may also refer cases to the International Criminal Court (ICC) even if the issue being referred is outside the normal jurisdiction of the ICC.[34] The United Nations Security Council has the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security and is the only body of the UN that can authorize the use of force. It has been criticised for failing to take action to prevent human rights abuses, including the Darfur crisis, the

Srebrenica massacre and the Rwandan Genocide.[35] For example, critics blamed the presence of non-democracies on the Security Council for its failure regarding.[36] On April 28, 2006 the Security Council adopted resolution 1674 that reaffirmed the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity" and committed the Security Council to action to protect civilians in armed conflict.[37] [edit] Other UN Treaty Bodies A modern interpretation of the original Declaration of Human Rights was made in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights in 1993. The degree of unanimity over these conventions, in terms of how many and which countries have ratified them varies, as does the degree to which they are respected by various states. The UN has set up a number of treaty-based bodies to monitor and study human rights, to be supported by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR). The bodies are committees of independent experts that monitor implementation of the core international human rights treaties. They are created by the treaty that they monitor, except CESCR.

The Human Rights Committee promotes participation with the standards of the ICCPR. The eighteen members of the committee express opinions on member countries and make judgments on individual complaints against countries which have ratified an Optional Protocol to the treaty. The judgments, termed "views", are not legally binding. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights monitors the ICESCR and makes general comments on ratifying countries performance. It will have the power to receive complaints against the countries that opted into the Optional Protocol once it has come into force. The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination monitors the CERD and conducts regular reviews of countries' performance. It can make judgments on complaints against member states allowing it, but these are not legally binding. It issues warnings to attempt to prevent serious contraventions of the convention. The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women monitors the CEDAW. It receives states' reports on their performance and comments on them, and can make judgments on complaints against countries which have opted into the 1999 Optional Protocol. The Committee Against Torture monitors the CAT and receives states' reports on their performance every four years and comments on them. Its subcommittee may visit and inspect countries which have opted into the Optional Protocol. The Committee on the Rights of the Child monitors the CRC and makes comments on reports submitted by states every five years. It does not have the power to receive complaints.

The Committee on Migrant Workers was established in 2004 and monitors the ICRMW and makes comments on reports submitted by states every five years. It will have the power to receive complaints of specific violations only once ten member states allow it. The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was established in 2008 to monitor the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It has the power to receive complaints against the countries which have opted into the Optional Protocol.

Each treaty body receives secretariat support from the Human Rights Council and Treaties Division of Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR) in Geneva except CEDAW, which is supported by the Division for the Advancement of Women (DAW). CEDAW formerly held all its sessions at United Nations headquarters in New York but now frequently meets at the United Nations Office in Geneva; the other treaty bodies meet in Geneva. The Human Rights Committee usually holds its March session in New York City.

[edit] Non-governmental Organizations

This section requires expansion. International non-governmental human rights organizations such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, International Service for Human Rights and FIDH monitor what they see as human rights issues around the world and promote their views on the subject. Human Rights organizations have been said to ""translate complex international issues into activities to be undertaken by concerned citizens in their own community".[38] Human rights organizations frequently engage in lobbying and advocacy in an effort to convince the United Nations, supranational bodies and national governments to adopt their policies on human rights. Many human-rights organizations have observer status at the various UN bodies tasked with protecting human rights. A new (in 2009) nongovernmental human-rights conference is the Oslo Freedom Forum, a gathering described by The Economist as "on its way to becoming a human-rights equivalent of the Davos economic forum." The same article noted that human-rights advocates are more and more divided amongst themselves over how violations of human rights are to be defined, notably as regards the Middle East.[39] There is criticism of human-rights organizations who use their status but allegedly move away from their stated goals. For example, Gerald M. Steinberg, an Israel-based academic, maintains that NGOs take advantage of a "halo effect" and are "given the status of impartial moral watchdogs" by governments and the media.[40] Such critics claim that this may be seen at various governmental levels, including when human-rights groups testify before investigation committees.
[41]

An example of how an NGO's halo effect is misused is with NUI Galways Irish Centre for Human Rights presenting its distinguished graduate award to Shawan Jabarin, an alleged senior activist in the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) terrorist organization. In addition to his suspected ties to the PFLP, Mr. Jabarin leads Al Haq, a Palestinian non-governmental organization (NGO) that participates in the de-legitimization of Israel and brings lawfare cases against Israeli officials and those who do business with Israel, says Prof. Gerald Steinberg,

president of NGO Monitor. The Irish Centre for Human Rights is making a mockery of human rights values by presenting Mr. Jabarin with this award. This completely devalues the work of individuals throughout the world who fight for these rights.[42]

[edit] Regional human rights

The three principal regional human rights instruments are the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights (the Americas) and the European Convention on Human Rights. See also: List of human rights articles by country and National human rights institutions

[edit] Africa
Main article: Human rights in Africa The African Union (AU) is a supranational union consisting of fifty-three African states.[43] Established in 2001, the AU's purpose is to help secure Africa's democracy, human rights, and a sustainable economy, especially by bringing an end to intra-African conflict and creating an effective common market.[44] The African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights is the region's principal human rights instrument and emerged under the aegis of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) (since replaced by the African Union). The intention to draw up the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights was announced in 1979 and the Charter was unanimously approved at the OAU's 1981 Assembly. Pursuant to its Article 63 (whereby it was to "come into force three months after the reception by the Secretary General of the instruments of ratification or adherence of a simple majority" of the OAU's member states), the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights came into effect on October 21, 1986 in honour of which 21st of October was declared "African Human Rights Day".[45] The African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR) is a quasi-judicial organ of the African Union tasked with promoting and protecting human rights and collective (peoples') rights throughout the African continent as well as interpreting the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights and considering individual complaints of violations of the Charter. The Commission has three broad areas of responsibility:[46]

Promoting human and peoples' rights Protecting human and peoples' rights Interpreting the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights

In pursuit of these goals, the Commission is mandated to "collect documents, undertake studies and researches on African problems in the field of human and peoples, rights, organise seminars, symposia and conferences, disseminate information, encourage national and local institutions concerned with human and peoples' rights and, should the case arise, give its views or make recommendations to governments" (Charter, Art. 45).[46]

With the creation of the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights (under a protocol to the Charter which was adopted in 1998 and entered into force in January 2004), the Commission will have the additional task of preparing cases for submission to the Court's jurisdiction.[47] In a July 2004 decision, the AU Assembly resolved that the future Court on Human and Peoples' Rights would be integrated with the African Court of Justice. The Court of Justice of the African Union is intended to be the "principal judicial organ of the Union" (Protocol of the Court of Justice of the African Union, Article 2.2).[48] Although it has not yet been established, it is intended to take over the duties of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, as well as act as the supreme court of the African Union, interpreting all necessary laws and treaties. The Protocol establishing the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights entered into force in January 2004[49] but its merging with the Court of Justice has delayed its establishment. The Protocol establishing the Court of Justice will come into force when ratified by 15 countries.[50] There are many countries in Africa accused of human rights violations by the international community and NGOs.[51]

[edit] Americas
See also: Human rights in North America and Human rights in South America The Organization of American States (OAS) is an international organization, headquartered in Washington, D.C., United States. Its members are the thirty-five independent states of the Americas. Over the course of the 1990s, with the end of the Cold War, the return to democracy in Latin America[citation needed], and the thrust toward globalization, the OAS made major efforts to reinvent itself to fit the new context. Its stated priorities now include the following:[52]

Strengthening democracy Working for peace Protecting human rights Combating corruption The rights of Indigenous Peoples Promoting sustainable development

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (the IACHR) is an autonomous organ of the Organization of American States, also based in Washington, D.C. Along with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, based in San Jos, Costa Rica, it is one of the bodies that comprise the inter-American system for the promotion and protection of human rights.[53] The IACHR is a permanent body which meets in regular and special sessions several times a year to examine allegations of human rights violations in the hemisphere. Its human rights duties stem from three documents:[54]

the OAS Charter the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man the American Convention on Human Rights

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights was established in 1979 with the purpose of enforcing and interpreting the provisions of the American Convention on Human Rights. Its two main functions are thus adjudicatory and advisory. Under the former, it hears and rules on the specific cases of human rights violations referred to it. Under the latter, it issues opinions on matters of legal interpretation brought to its attention by other OAS bodies or member states.[55] Many countries in the Americas, such as Colombia, Canada, Cuba, Mexico, The United States, and Venezuela have been accused of human rights violations.

[edit] Asia

Membership and expansion of the Asia Cooperation Dialogue. Note that the Republic of China (Taiwan) is recognised or acknowledged by the member states as part of the People's Republic of China (PRC), but de facto does not have any representation. Main articles: Human rights in Asia, Human rights in East Asia, Human rights in Central Asia, and Human Rights in the Middle East There are no Asia-wide organisations or conventions to promote or protect human rights. Countries vary widely in their approach to human rights and their record of human rights protection. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)[56] is a geo-political and economic organization of 10 countries located in Southeast Asia, formed in 1967 by Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand.[57] The organisation now also includes Brunei, Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar and Cambodia.[56] Its aims include the acceleration of economic growth, social progress, cultural development among its members, and the promotion of regional peace.[56] ASEAN established in 200910 an Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights. The Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (CCASG) is a trade bloc involving the seven Arab states of the Persian Gulf, with many economic and social objectives. Created in 1981, the Council comprises the Persian Gulf states of Yemen Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.[58] The Asia Cooperation Dialogue (ACD) is a body created in 2002 to promote Asian cooperation at a continental level, helping to integrate the previously separate regional organizations of political or economical cooperation. The main objectives of the ACD are as follows:[59]

To promote interdependence among Asian countries in all areas of cooperation by identifying Asia's common strengths and opportunities which will help reduce poverty and

improve the quality of life for Asian people whilst developing a knowledge-based society within Asia and enhancing community and people empowerment; To expand the trade and financial market within Asia and increase the bargaining power of Asian countries in lieu of competition and, in turn, enhance Asia's economic competitiveness in the global market; To serve as the missing link in Asian cooperation by building upon Asia's potentials and strengths through supplementing and complementing existing cooperative frameworks so as to become a viable partner for other regions; To ultimately transform the Asian continent into an Asian Community, capable of interacting with the rest of the world on a more equal footing and contributing more positively towards mutual peace and prosperity.

None of the above organisations have a specific mandate to promote or protect human rights, but each has some human rights related economic, social and cultural objectives.[59][60] A number of Asian countries are accused of serious human rights abuses by the international community and human rights organisations.[61]

[edit] Europe
Main article: Human rights in Europe The Council of Europe, founded in 1949, is the oldest organisation working for European integration. It is an international organisation with legal personality recognised under public international law and has observer status with the United Nations. The seat of the Council of Europe is in Strasbourg, France. The Council of Europe is responsible for both the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights.[62] These institutions bind the Council's members to a code of human rights which, though strict, are more lenient than those of the United Nations charter on human rights.[citation needed] The Council promotes the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages and the European Social Charter.[63] Membership is open to all European states which seek European integration, accept the principle of the rule of law and are able and willing to guarantee democracy, fundamental human rights and freedoms.[64] The Council of Europe is separate from the European Union, but the latter is expected to accede to the European Convention and potentially the Council itself.[citation needed] The EU also has a separate human rights document, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.[65] The European Convention on Human Rights has since 1950 defined and guaranteed human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe.[66] All 47 member states of the Council of Europe have signed the Convention and are therefore under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.[66] In order to prevent torture and inhuman or degrading treatment (Article 3 of the Convention), the Committee for the Prevention of Torture was established.[67] The European Court of Human Rights is the only international court with jurisdiction to deal with cases brought by individuals (rather than states).[66] In early 2010 the court had a backlog of over 120,000 cases and a multi-year waiting list.[68] [69] [70] About 1 out of every 20 cases submitted to the

court is considered admissible.[71] In 2007 the court issued 1,503 verdicts. At the current rate of proceedings, it would take 46 years for the backlog to clear.[72]

[edit] Oceania
Main article: Human rights in Oceania There are no regional approaches or agreements on human rights for Oceania, but most countries have a well-regarded human rights record. However, incorporated into the 2005 Pacific Plan, is the commitment to a plan of "defence and promotion of human rights" in the region. The idea of an institutionalized regional human rights framework is ongoing, with an objective to establish an ombudsman and security structures that goes beyond the Pacific Islands Forum.[7][73] Australia is the only western democracy with no constitutional or legislative bill of rights, but a number of laws have been enacted to protect human rights and the Constitution of Australia has been found to contain certain implied rights by the High Court. However, Australia has been criticised at various times for its immigration policies, treatment of asylum seekers, treatment of its indigenous population, and foreign policy.

[edit] Concepts in human rights

[edit] Indivisibility and categorization
The most common categorization of human rights is to split them into civil and political rights, and economic, social and cultural rights. Civil and political rights are enshrined in articles 3 to 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Economic, social and cultural rights are enshrined in articles 22 to 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). [edit] Indivisibility The UDHR included both economic, social and cultural rights and civil and political rights because it was based on the principle that the different rights could only successfully exist in combination:

The ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his social, economic and cultural rights

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, 1966

This is held to be true because without civil and political rights the public cannot assert their economic, social and cultural rights. Similarly, without livelihoods and a working society, the public cannot assert or make use of civil or political rights (known as the full belly thesis). The indivisibility and interdependence of all human rights has been confirmed by the 1993 Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action:

All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and related. The international community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing, and with the same emphasis

Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, World Conference on Human Rights, 1993

This statement was again endorsed at the 2005 World Summit in New York (paragraph 121). Although accepted by the signatories to the UDHR, most do not in practice give equal weight to the different types of rights. Some Western cultures have often given priority to civil and political rights, sometimes at the expense of economic and social rights such as the right to work, to education, health and housing. For example, in the United States there is no universal access to healthcare free at the point of use.[74] That is not to say that Western cultures have overlooked these rights entirely (the welfare states that exist in Western Europe are evidence of this). Similarly the ex Soviet bloc countries and Asian countries have tended to give priority to economic, social and cultural rights, but have often failed to provide civil and political rights. [edit] Categorization Opponents of the indivisibility of human rights argue that economic, social and cultural rights are fundamentally different from civil and political rights and require completely different approaches. Economic, social and cultural rights are argued to be:[75]

positive, meaning that they require active provision of entitlements by the state (as opposed to the state being required only to prevent the breach of rights) resource-intensive, meaning that they are expensive and difficult to provide progressive, meaning that they will take significant time to implement vague, meaning they cannot be quantitatively measured, and whether they are adequately provided or not is difficult to judge ideologically divisive/political, meaning that there is no consensus on what should and shouldn't be provided as a right socialist, as opposed to capitalist non-justiciable, meaning that their provision, or the breach of them, cannot be judged in a court of law aspirations or goals, as opposed to real 'legal' rights

Similarly civil and political rights are categorized as:

negative, meaning the state can protect them simply by taking no action cost-free immediate, meaning they can be immediately provided if the state decides to precise, meaning their provision is easy to judge and measure non-ideological/non-political capitalist justiciable real 'legal' rights

In The No-Nonsense Guide to Human Rights, Olivia Ball and Paul Gready argue that for both civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights, it is easy to find examples which do not fit into the above categorisation. Among several others, they highlight the fact that maintaining a judicial system, a fundamental requirement of the civil right to due process before the law and other rights relating to judicial process, is positive, resource-intensive, progressive and vague, while the social right to housing is precise, justiciable and can be a real 'legal' right.[76] Another categorization, offered by Karel Vasak, is that there are three generations of human rights: first-generation civil and political rights (right to life and political participation), secondgeneration economic, social and cultural rights (right to subsistence) and third-generation solidarity rights (right to peace, right to clean environment). Out of these generations, the third generation is the most debated and lacks both legal and political recognition. This categorisation is at odds with the indivisibility of rights, as it implicitly states that some rights can exist without others. Prioritisation of rights for pragmatic reasons is however a widely accepted necessity. Human rights expert Philip Alston argues:

If every possible human rights element is deemed to be essential or necessary, then nothing will be treated as though it is truly important.
Philip Alston[77]

He, and others, urge caution with prioritisation of rights: ...the call for prioritizing is not to suggest that any obvious violations of rights can be ignored.
Philip Alston[77]

Priorities, where necessary, should adhere to core concepts (such as reasonable attempts at progressive realization) and principles (such as non-discrimination, equality and participation.
Olivia Ball, Paul Gready [78]

Some human rights are said to be "inalienable rights". The term inalienable rights (or unalienable rights) refers to "a set of human rights that are fundamental, are not awarded by human power, and cannot be surrendered."

[edit] Universalism vs. cultural relativism

Main articles: Cultural relativism, Moral relativism, and Moral universalism

Map: Estimated Prevalence of Female Genital Cutting (FGC) in Africa. Data based on uncertain estimates. The UDHR enshrines universal rights that apply to all humans equally, whichever geographical location, state, race or culture they belong to. Proponents of cultural relativism argue for acceptance of different cultures, which may have practices conflicting with human rights. For example female genital mutilation occurs in different cultures in Africa, Asia and South America. It is not mandated by any religion, but has become a tradition in many cultures. It is considered a violation of women's and girl's rights by much of the international community, and is outlawed in some countries. Universalism has been described by some as cultural, economic or political imperialism. In particular, the concept of human rights is often claimed to be fundamentally rooted in a politically liberal outlook which, although generally accepted in Europe, Japan or North America, is not necessarily taken as standard elsewhere. For example, in 1981, the Iranian representative to the United Nations, Said Rajaie-Khorassani, articulated the position of his country regarding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by saying that the UDHR was "a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition", which could not be implemented by Muslims without trespassing the Islamic law.[79] The former Prime Ministers of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, and of Malaysia, Mahathir bin Mohamad both claimed in the 1990s that Asian values were significantly different from western values and included a sense of loyalty and foregoing personal freedoms for the sake of social stability and prosperity, and therefore authoritarian government is more appropriate in Asia than democracy. This view is countered by Mahathir's former deputy:

To say that freedom is Western or unAsian is to offend our traditions as well as our forefathers, who gave their lives in the struggle against tyranny and injustices.

A Ibrabim in his keynote speech to the Asian Press Forum title Media and Society in Asia, December 2, 1994

and by Singapore's opposition leader Chee Soon Juan, who states that it is racist to assert that Asians do not want human rights.[80][81] An appeal is often made to the fact that influential human-rights thinkers, such as John Locke and John Stuart Mill, have all been Western and indeed that some were involved in the running of Empires themselves.[82][83] Cultural relativism is a self-detonating position; if cultural relativism is true, then universalism must also be true. Relativistic arguments tend to neglect the fact that modern human rights are new to all cultures, dating back no further than the UDHR in 1948. They also don't account for the fact that the UDHR was drafted by people from many different cultures and traditions, including a US Roman Catholic, a Chinese Confucian philosopher, a French zionist and a representative from the Arab League, amongst others, and drew upon advice from thinkers such as Mahatma Gandhi.[20] Michael Ignatieff has argued that cultural relativism is almost exclusively an argument used by those who wield power in cultures which commit human rights abuses, and that those whose human rights are compromised are the powerless.[84] This reflects the fact that the difficulty in judging universalism versus relativism lies in who is claiming to represent a particular culture. Although the argument between universalism and relativism is far from complete, it is an academic discussion in that all international human rights instruments adhere to the principle that human rights are universally applicable. The 2005 World Summit reaffirmed the international community's adherence to this principle:

The universal nature of human rights and freedoms is beyond question.

2005 World Summit, paragraph 120

[edit] State and non-state actors

Companies, NGOs, political parties, informal groups, and individuals are known as non-State actors. Non-State actors can also commit human rights abuses, but are not generally subject to human rights law other than under International Humanitarian Law, which applies to individuals. [citation needed] Also, certain national instruments such as the Human Rights Act 1998 (UK), impose

human rights obligations on certain entities which are not traditionally considered as part of government ("public authorities").[citation needed] Multinational companies play an increasingly large role in the world, and are responsible for a large number of human rights abuses.[85] Although the legal and moral environment surrounding the actions of governments is reasonably well developed, that surrounding multinational companies is both controversial and ill-defined.[citation needed] Multinational companies' primary responsibility is to their shareholders, not to those affected by their actions. Such companies may be larger than the economies of some the states within which they operate, and can wield significant economic and political power. No international treaties exist to specifically cover the behavior of companies with regard to human rights, and national legislation is very variable. Jean Ziegler, Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights on the right to food stated in a report in 2003:

the growing power of transnational corporations and their extension of power through privatization, deregulation and the rolling back of the State also mean that it is now time to develop binding legal norms that hold corporations to human rights standards and circumscribe potential abuses of their position of power.
Jean Ziegler[86]

In August 2003 the Human Rights Commission's Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights produced draft Norms on the responsibilities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises with regard to human rights.[87] These were considered by the Human Rights Commission in 2004, but have no binding status on corporations and are not monitored.[88]

[edit] Legal issues

[edit] Human rights vs. national security
See also: National security and Anti-terrorism legislation With the exception of non-derogable human rights (international conventions class the right to life, the right to be free from slavery, the right to be free from torture and the right to be free from retroactive application of penal laws as non-derogable),[89] the UN recognises that human rights can be limited or even pushed aside during times of national emergency although

the emergency must be actual, affect the whole population and the threat must be to the very existence of the nation. The declaration of emergency must also be a last resort and a temporary measure
United Nations. The Resource[89]

Rights that cannot be derogated for reasons of national security in any circumstances are known as peremptory norms or jus cogens. Such United Nations Charter obligations are binding on all states and cannot be modified by treaty. Examples of national security being used to justify human rights violations include the Japanese American internment during World War II,[90] Stalin's Great Purge,[91] and the modern-day abuses of terror suspects rights by some countries, often in the name of the War on Terror.[92][93]

[edit] Human rights violations

See also: Genocides in history Human rights violations occur when any state or non-state actor breaches any part of the UDHR treaty or other international human rights or humanitarian law. In regard to human rights violations of United Nations laws. Article 39 of the United Nations Charter designates the UN Security Council (or an appointed authority) as the only tribunal that may determine UN human rights violations. Human rights abuses are monitored by United Nations committees, national institutions and governments and by many independent non-governmental organizations, such as Amnesty International, International Federation of Human Rights, Human Rights Watch, World Organisation Against Torture, Freedom House, International Freedom of Expression Exchange and Anti-Slavery International. These organisations collect evidence and documentation of alleged human rights abuses and apply pressure to enforce human rights laws. Only a very few countries do not commit significant human rights violations, according to Amnesty International. In their 2004 human rights report (covering 2003), the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Iceland and Costa Rica are the only (mappable) countries that did not (in the opinion of Amnesty International) violate at least some human rights significantly.[94] There are a wide variety of databases available which attempt to measure, in a rigorous fashion, exactly what violations governments commit against those within their territorial jurisdiction.[citation needed] An example of this is the list created and maintained by Prof. Christian Davenport at the Kroc Institute University of Notre Dame.[95] Wars of aggression, war crimes and crimes against humanity, including genocide, are breaches of International humanitarian law and represent the most serious of human rights violations. When a government closes a geographical region to journalists, it raises suspicions of human rights violations. Seven regions are currently closed to foreign journalists:

Chechnya, Russia [96] Myanmar (Burma) North Korea Papua, Indonesia [97] Peshawar, Pakistan [98]

Jaffna Peninsula, Srilanka [99] Eritrea [8]

[edit] Currently debated rights

Events and new possibilities can affect existing rights or require new ones. Advances of technology, medicine, and philosophy constantly challenge the status quo of human rights thinking.

[edit] Environmental rights

There are two basic conceptions of environmental human rights in the current human rights system. The first is that the right to a healthy or adequate environment is itself a human right (as seen in both Article 24 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, and Article 11 of the San Salvador Protocol to the American Charter of Human Rights).[100][101] The second conception is the idea that environmental human rights can be derived from other human rights, usually the right to life, the right to health, the right to private family life and the right to property (among many others). This second theory enjoys much more widespread use in human rights courts around the world, as those rights are contained in many human rights documents. The onset of various environmental issues, especially climate change, has created potential conflicts between different human rights. Human rights ultimately require a working ecosystem and healthy environment, but the granting of certain rights to individuals may damage these. Such as the conflict between right to decide number of offspring and the common need for a healthy environment, as noted in the tragedy of the commons.[102] In the area of environmental rights, the responsibilities of multinational corporations, so far relatively unaddressed by human rights legislation, is of paramount consideration.[citation needed] Environmental Rights revolve largely around the idea of a right to a livable environment both for the present and the future generations.

[edit] Future generations

In 1997 UNESCO adopted the Declaration on the Responsibilities of the Present Generation Towards the Future Generation. The Declaration opens with the words:

Mindful of the will of the peoples, set out solemnly in the Charter of the United Nations, to 'save succeeding generations from the scourge of war' and to safeguard the values and principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and all other relevant instruments of international law.
Declaration on the Responsibilities of the Present Generation Towards the Future Generation

Article 1 of the declaration states "the present generations have the responsibility of ensuring that the needs and interests of present and future generations are fully safeguarded." The preamble to

the declaration states that "at this point in history, the very existence of humankind and its environment are threatened" and the declaration covers a variety of issues including protection of the environment, the human genome, biodiversity, cultural heritage, peace, development, and education. The preamble recalls that the responsibilities of the present generations towards future generations has been referred to in various international instruments, including the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (UNESCO 1972), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity (Rio de Janeiro, 1992), the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (UN Conference on Environment and Development, 1992), the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action (World Conference on Human Rights, 1993) and a number of UN General Assembly resolutions relating to the protection of the global climate for present and future generations adopted since 1990.[103]

[edit] Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT) rights

Main article: LGBT rights LGBT rights are rights that relate to sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression. In 77 countries, homosexuality remains a criminal offense, punishable by execution in seven countries.[104] The decriminalization of private, consensual, adult sexual relations, especially in countries where corporal or capital punishment is involved, remains one of the primary concerns of LGBT human rights advocates.[105] Other issues include but are not limited to: government recognition of same-sex relationships, LGBT adoption, sexual orientation and military service, immigration equality, anti-discrimination laws, hate crime laws regarding violence against LGBT people, sodomy laws, anti-lesbianism laws, and equal age of consent for same-sex activity.[106][107][108][109][110][111] A global charter for LGBT rights has been proposed in the form of the 'Yogyakarta Principles', a set of 29 principles whose authors say they apply International Human Rights Law statutes and precedent to situations relevant to LGBT people's experience.[112] The principles were presented at a United Nations event in New York on November 7, 2007, co-sponsored by Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay. The principles have been acknowledged with influencing the French proposed UN declaration on sexual orientation and gender identity, which focuses on ending violence, criminalization and capital punishment and does not include dialogue about same-sex marriage or right to start a family.[113][114] The proposal was supported by 67 of the United Nations' 192 member countries, including all EU nations and the United States. An alternative statement opposing the proposal was initiated by Syria and signed by 57 member nations, including all 27 nations of the Arab League as well as Iran and North Korea.[115][116]

[edit] Trade
Although both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights emphasize the importance of a right to work, neither of these

documents explicitly mention trade as a mechanism for ensuring this fundamental right. And yet trade plays a key role in providing jobs.[117] Some experts argue that trade is inherent to human nature and that when governments inhibit international trade they directly inhibit the right to work and the other indirect benefits, like the right to education, that increased work and investment help accrue.[118] Others have argued that the ability to trade does not affect everyone equallyoften groups like the rural poor, indigenous groups and women are less likely to access the benefits of increased trade.[119] On the other hand, others think that it is no longer primarily individuals but companies that trade, and therefore it cannot be guaranteed as a human right.[citation needed] Additionally, trying to fit too many concepts under the umbrella of what qualifies as a human right has the potential to dilute their importance. Finally, it is difficult to define a right to trade as either "fair"[120] or "just" in that the current trade regime produces winners and losers but its reform is likely to produce (different) winners and losers.[121] See also: The Recognition of Labour Standards within the World Trade Organisation and Investor state dispute settlement

[edit] Water
See also: Water politics and Right to water In November 2002, the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights issued a non-binding comment affirming that access to water was a human right:

the human right to water is indispensable for leading a life in human dignity. It is a prerequisite for the realization of other human rights.
United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

This principle was reaffirmed at the 3rd and 4th World Water Councils in 2003 and 2006. This marks a departure from the conclusions of the 2nd World Water Forum in The Hague in 2000, which stated that water was a commodity to be bought and sold, not a right.[122] There are calls from many NGOs and politicians to enshrine access to water as a binding human right, and not as a commodity.[123] [124]According to the United Nations, nearly 900 million people lack access to clean water and more than 2.6 billion people lack access to basic sanitation. On July 28, 2010, the UN declared water and sanitation as human rights. By declaring safe and clean drinking water and sanitation as a human right, the U.N. General Assembly made a step towards the Millennium Development Goal to ensure environmental sustainability , which, in part, aims to halve, by 2015, the proportion of the population without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation.

[edit] Crime and Punishment

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone has the "right to life".[125] According to many Human Rights activists, the death penalty violates these rights.[126] The United Nations has called on retentionist states to establish a moratorium on capital punishment with a view to its abolition.[127] States which do not do so face considerable moral and political pressure. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights prohibits torture and other cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment. Countries have argued that "enhanced interrogation methods", which amount to torture, are needed for national security. Human rights activists have also criticized some methods used to punish criminal offenders. For example, corporal punishment is regarded by some as a violation of human rights. An example is caning, used in Malaysia, Brunei, and Singapore, and considered by Amnesty International to be cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment.[128] In Mexico, life imprisonment without parole is also considered to be cruel and unusual punishment. Other practices, such as police brutality and impunity for human rights violators[129] are also seen as human rights issues.

[edit] Fetal rights

Main article: fetal rights Fetal rights are the legal or ethical rights of human fetuses. The term is used most often in the context of the abortion debate, as the basis for an argument in support of the pro-life stance.

[edit] Reproductive rights

Main article: reproductive rights Reproductive rights are rights relating to reproduction and reproductive health.[130] The World Health Organisation defines reproductive rights as follows:

Reproductive rights rest on the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. They also include the right of all to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence.
World Health Organisation [62]

Reproductive rights were first established as a subset of human rights at the United Nation's 1968 International Conference on Human Rights.[131] The sixteenth article of the resulting Proclamation of Teheran states, "Parents have a basic human right to determine freely and responsibly the number and the spacing of their children."[131][132] Reproductive rights may include some or all of the following rights: the right to legal or safe abortion, the right to control one's reproductive functions, the right to quality reproductive healthcare, and the right to education and access in order to make reproductive choices free from coercion, discrimination, and violence.[133]

Reproductive rights may also be understood to include education about contraception and sexually transmitted infections, and freedom from coerced sterilization and contraception, protection from gender-based practices such as female genital cutting (FGC) and male genital mutilation (MGM).
[130][131][133][134]

[edit] ICT & Human Rights

Main article: Right to Internet access Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) - internet, web, and social media - are fast becoming a comprehensive repository and soon an archive of (most) human knowledge. With access to ICT, an individual can become informed on everything from healthcare issues to civic problems to legal concerns. One hundred years ago, people were discussing the need for basic literacy and its impact on the human condition. Today, we should be discussing digital literacy and access in the same way. Digital literacy can be seen as a basic human right. Individuals can impact society, react, and reach out with the aide of technology. ICT is a powerful tool for encouraging, teaching, and protecting the human rights (as outlined above). In 2009, Finland made 1-megabit broadband Web access a legal right. It's the first country to do so.
[135]

"Almost four in five people around the world believe that access to the internet is a fundamental right, a poll for the BBC World Service suggests." BBC Online.[136]